CHAPTER THREE

DATA DESCRITION AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Data Description
Before embarking on describing the data of this work, it must be mentioned that the data collected for the analysis are represented by (48) conversational situations chosen from the three novels as a whole. This entails that the genre of analysis is conversation.

3.1.1 Features of the Data

Generally speaking, the data of this work are characterized by certain features which can be illustrated as follows: 1. Length: They are lengthy and sometimes very lengthy to the extent that they occupy up to more than three whole pages. This can be accounted for by invoking what Craik (1987: 149) has pointed out. She denotes that the material from which the Bronts novels are built is taken from real life situations, and more accurately from personal experiences. For instance, Charlotte Bront, the eldest of the sisters, has immortalized her experiences and the school in Jane Eyres at Lowood Institution (ibid.: 147). It is well known that real life situations are, generally, lengthy because they are full of details, whether relevant or not; so building a novel on such kind of situations means that the writer mentions many details in an attempt to give those situations the impression of being real and not tailored to what the writer has in mind. In this regard, the Bronts sisters (Charlotte, Emily,

83 and Anne) have been very successful, as is demonstrated by Lucas (1994: cover), who asserts that no one had achieved such a combination of realism and romance before (my italics). 2. Variation: They are various as far as the interactants and topics are concerned. As regards the interactants, they are not specified to a certain kind ( e.g. a master and a servant, or a husband and wife); rather, they include (to mention just few examples): a servant and child (as in the conversation between Bessie and Jane, see example 1), a governess and her miss (as in the conversation between Nelly and Catherine, see example 12), and a mother and her son (as in the conversation between Mrs. Markham and Gilbert, see example 27). As for the topics, they are also different from each other. They include (to mention just few examples): marriage proposals ( as in the conversation between St.John and Jane, see example 8), blaming for certain actions (as when Heathcliff blames Catherine for spending more time with the others than with him, see example 11), and accusing of something (as when Arthur accuses his wife, Helen, of not loving him, see example 38). 3. Understandability: The language used in those situations is not difficult to grasp. One exception is the example in which Joseph and Mrs. Heathcliff quarrel (See example 9). In that example, it will be noticed that Josephs language is not the same as Cathys (Mrs. Heathcliffs) or any other character in the novel. This is so because Emily Bront intends Joseph to be of a religious character, and as such she makes him use the language of the Old Testament throughout the novel as a whole. However, in the rest of the situations (in the three novels), the language used is quite understandable and needs no interpretation.

84

3.1.2 Contextual Factors of the Data

The most important contextual factors of the speech event as introduced by Hymes (1974) are considered for providing a contextual description of the data under analysis. Nevertheless, only those features which shed some light on understanding the situations under study will be referred to. Besides, the type of relationship between interactants is pointed out to help understand the situations more obviously. It must be mentioned that the description of our data in this regard will be presented in the form of a table for the sake of brevity and simplicity. The table can be viewed as follows:

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

3.2 Data Analysis and Findings

3.2.1 Methods of Analysis
The eclectic model presented in Chapter Two will be used for analyzing argumentation in the three novels under study (See 2.4). The data collected for analysis are represented by (48) argumentative situations chosen from the three novels as a whole. The mathematical statistical tool that will be used for calculating the results of the analysis is the percentage equation. The texts of the novels take the following symbols through the analysis: - T1 = Jane Eyre. - T2 = Wuthering Heights. - T3 = The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. It is worthy mentioning that the texts have been presented in this order owing to their chronological arrangement of publication: - Jane Eyre is published in October, 1847. - Wuthering Heights is published in December, 1847. - The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is published in June, 1848 (Cited in The Bronts: Three Great Novels).

93

3.2.2 Selected Examples for Pragmatic Analysis

Due to the fact that the situations representing the data are too many, and analyzing all of them will occupy a large space in this work; only some illustrative examples will be presented (viz. four examples from T1, ten examples from T2 and ten examples from T3). This is done for the sake of two things: first, just to reveal what kind of analysis is conducted; and second, to shed light on the findings of the analysis. The analysis of the other situations will be presented in a table following the analysis of the selected examples (See Table (1) above for the contextual factors of all the examples). Situation(1): Bessie: For shame! for shame! What shocking conduct, Miss Eyre, to strike a young gentleman, your benefactresss son! Your young master! Jane: Master! How is he my master? Am I a servant? Bessie: No; you are less than a servant, for you do nothing for your keep. There, sit down and think over your wickedness. You ought to be aware, Miss, that you are under obligations to Mrs. Reed: she keeps you; if she were to turn you off, you would have to go to the poor-house. Jane: (I had nothing to say to these words: they were not new to me: my very first recollections of existence included hints of the same kind). (T1: 7) In this example, the confrontation stage is triggered by violating Janes positive face through insulting her by Bessie (who characterizes Jane as a servant). The insult has not been stated by explicitly telling Jane that she is a servant; rather,

94 it is implied in the use of the epithet master to characterize her cousin, indicating that someone who has a master could be a kind of servant. In the second subsequent argumentation stage, Bessie argues effectively and appropriately. Her effective arguing is shown in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; so, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Jane as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim).The appropriate arguing is manifested in her keeping to the PP which is shown by her use of: a- The title Miss that denotes deference (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). b- The conditional clause if she were which mitigates imposition (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d); and c- The past tense she were; you would which gives the addressee the freedom of giving the answer required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The finding in this stage, in addition to the ones conducted in situations 2,3,4,5,7, and 8, are compatible with the findings listed in Table (3) and shown in Figure (6) below. Together, they fulfill the second aim of this study (i.e. tracing how arguers pragmatically proceed their argumentation (whether effectively, appropriately, or by appealing to a combination of both) before they get out of it in the three novels); and verify the second hypothesis (i.e. generally, arguers abide by using a combination of both the effective arguing and the appropriate arguing in proceeding argumentation in the novels under analysis).

95 This leads to the third stage of the process, i.e. the concluding stage which is negative. It ends with psychological disengagement because Jane keeps silent. Keeping silent is negative because it precludes any further communication between interactants, and so the main point of incompatibility is not resolved (Cf. 2.4.3). The finding in this stage, in addition the ones arrived at in situations 2and 4, accord with the findings listed in Table (3) and shown in Figure (6) below. Together, they fulfill the third aim of the study (that is, investigating the most common pragmatic strategy(ies) of getting out of argumentation in the three novels); but reject the third hypothesis (that is, disagreement is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting out of argumentation in the three novels). Situation (5): Rochester: That is no answer: or rather it is a very irritating, because a very evasive one reply clearly. Jane: I dont think, sir, you have a right to command me, merely because you are older than I, or because you have seen more of the world than I have your claim to superiority depends on the use you have made of your time and experience. Rochester: Humph! Promptly spoken. But I wont allow that, seeing that it would never suit my case; as I have made an indifferent, not to say, a bad use of both advantages. Leaving superiority out of the question then, you must still agree to receive my orders now and then, without being piqued or hurt by the tone of the command will you? (T1: 106)

The confrontation stage, in this example, is motivated through violating Janes negative face by Rochesters commanding her to reply to his question. The command has been explicitly issued as a command (reply clearly).

96 In the second subsequent argumentation stage, Jane argues competently, that is, effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing is demonstrated in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Rochester as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, on the other hand, is manifested in her keeping to the PP indicated by her use of the title sir which shows deference (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). The argumentation, in this example, has been positively concluded by showing agreement. The agreement is implied in Rochesters requesting Jane to receive his orders, at any time, without being piqued or hurt by them; and that indicates the commanders (i.e. Rochesters) admission that he has not the right to command her because of the reasons he mentions. And that, also, denotes that he has been convinced by what Jane has said, and thus he agrees with her. Situation (6): Rochester: You are afraid of me, because I talk like a Sphynx. Jane: Your language is enigmatical, sir: but though I am bewildered, I am certainly not afraid. Rochester: You are afraid your self-love dreads a blunder. Jane: In that sense I do feel apprehensive I have no wish to talk nonsense. Rochester: If you did, it would be in such a grave, quiet manner, I should mistake it for a sense. Do you never laugh, Miss Eyre? Dont trouble your self to answer I see, you laugh rarely; but you can laugh very merrily: believe me you are not naturally austere, any more than I am naturally vicious. The Lowood constraint

97 still clings to you somewhat; controlling your features, muffling your voice, and restricting your limbs; and you fear in the presence of a man and a brother or father, or master, or what you will to smile too gaily, to speak too freely or to move too quickly: but in time ,I think you will learn to be natural with me, as I find it impossible to be conventional with you; and then your looks and movements will have more vivacity and variety than they dare offer now. I see, at intervals, the glance of a curious sort of bird through the close-set bars of the cage: a vivid, restless, resolute captive is there; were it but free, it would sour cloud-high . You are still bent on going? Jane: It has struck nine, sir. (T1: 109-10) The confrontation stage, here, is initiated by violating Janes positive face via Rochesters criticizing her for being afraid of him. The criticism is presented as an assertion (You are afraid). The finding in this stage, as well as the ones found in situations 2,4, and 7, go along with the findings listed in Table (3) and shown in Figure (6) below. Together, they fulfill the first aim of this study (i.e. investigating the most common pragmatic strategy(ies) of getting into argumentation in the selected novels); and verify the first hypothesis (i.e. accusation is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting into argumentation in the three novels under study). In the second stage of the process, Rochester does not argue effectively, though he argues appropriately. His ineffective arguing is shown in his violation of two maxims: the quality maxim, which is indicated by his use of I think meaning that he is not sure of what he says; and the relevance maxim, which is denoted by the last part of his arguing (that is, the part in which he thinks that one day Jane

98 will behave differently to him than she does now) which has nothing to do with convincing her that she is afraid of him. His appropriate arguing is demonstrated in his keeping to the PP by employing the following strategies: a- The use of the conditional clause (if you did) in the past tense which mitigates imposition (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d) and (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). b- The use of question which is more polite because it is the most indirect (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a); and c- The use of the title Miss which shows deference (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). The concluding stage, here, is negative. It ends with disagreement which is not explicitly expressed. The disagreement is implied in Janes answer that the time has passed the childs bed-time denoting that she wants to go; and if she wants to go willingly, then she has no desire to continue the argumentation any further which, in turn, indicates that she has not been convinced by what he has said and, thus, she disagrees with him. The finding in this stage, in addition to the findings in situations 3 and 8, match the findings listed in Table (3) and shown in Figure (6) below. Together, they fulfill the third aim of the study (that is, investigating the most common pragmatic strategy(ies) of getting out of argumentation in the three novels); and verify the third hypothesis (that is, disagreement is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting out of argumentation in the three novels). It can be said, then, that the third hypothesis has been partially verified and partially rejected.

99 Situation (8): St. John: God and nature intended you for a missionarys wife. It is not personal, but mental endowments they have given you: you are formed with labour, and not for love. A missionarys wife you must shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereigns service. Jane: I am not fit for it: I have no vocation. St. John: Humility, Jane, is the ground work of Christian virtues: you say right that you are not fit for the work. Who is fit for it? Or, who, that ever was truly called, believed himself worthy of the summons? I, for instance, am but dust and ashes. With St. Paul I acknowledge myself the chiefest of sinners: but I do not suffer this sense of my personal vileness to daunt me. I know my Leader: that He is just as well as mighty; and while He has chosen a feeble instrument to perform a great task, He will, from the boundless stores of His providence, supply the inadequacy of the means to the end. Think like me, Jane trust like me. It is the Rock of the Ages I ask you to lean on: do not doubt but it will bear the weight of your human weakness. Jane: I do not understand a missionary life: I have never studied missionary labours. St. John: There, I, humble as I am, can give you the aid you want: I can set you your task from hour to hour; stand by you always; help you from moment to moment. This I could do in the beginning: soon (for I know your powers) you would be as strong and apt as myself, and would not require my help. Jane: But my powers where are they for this undertaking? I do not feel them. Nothing speaks or stirs in me while you talk. I am sensible of no light kindling no life quickening no voice counselling or cheering. Oh, I wish I could make you see how much my mind is at this moment like a rayless dungeon, with one

100 shrinking fear fettered in its depths the fear of being persuaded by you to attempt what I cannot accomplish. St. John: I have no answer for you hear it. I have watched you ever since we first met: I have made you my study for ten months. I have proved you in that time by sundry tests: and what I have seen and elicited? In the village school I found you could perform well, punctually, uprightly, labour uncongenial to your habits and inclinations; I saw you could win while you controlled. In the calm with which you learnt you had become suddenly rich, I read a mind clear of the vice of Demas: lucre had no undue power over you. In the resolute readiness with which you cut your wealth into four shares, keeping but one to yourself, and relinquishing the three others to the claim of abstract justice, I recognized a soul that revelled in the flame and excitement of sacrifice. In the tractability with which, at my wish, you forsook a study in which you were interested, and adopted another, because it interested me; in the untiring assiduity with which you have since preserved in it in the unflagging energy and unshaken temper with which you have met its difficulties I acknowledge the complement of the qualities I seek. Jane, you are docile, diligent, disinterested, faithful, constant, and courageous; very gentle, and very heroic: cease to mistrust yourself I can trust you unreservedly. As a conductress of Indian schools, and a helper amongst Indian women, your assistance will be to me invaluable. Jane: I am ready to go to India, if I may go free. St. John: Your answer requires a commentary, it is not clear. Jane: You have hitherto been my adopted brother, I, your adopted sister; let us continue as such: you and I had better not marry. (T1: 323-5)

101 In this lengthy example, the confrontation stage begins with violating Janes negative face by St. Johns proposing to marry her. Though a proposal is not one of the classifications of the developed model; it has some relation to request. This is evident in what Edmondson (1981: 142; cited in Al-Khazali, 2009: 111) points out. He argues that a proposal can be interpreted as combining in one act the force of a request and that of a willing. As such, a proposal, henceforth, will be considered a variation of request; in the same way whereby criticizing and blaming have been considered variations of accusation (Cf. 2.4.1). The proposal is presented as an assertion (A missionarys wife you must shall be. You shall be mine). In the subsequent stage, St. John employs the notion of argumentative competence, that is, he argues effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing manifests itself in St. Johns keeping to the CP and its four maxims, i.e. he has been informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that he has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Jane as being not true), relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, on the other hand, is employed by his keeping to the PP which is shown by the use of the first name Jane that has been repeated for three times to show rapport (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). Argumentation, in this example, is negatively concluded: it ends with disagreement. The disagreement is explicitly shown in Janes negating the verb marry, the gist of St. Johns proposal; and this means that his argumentation has not convinced her.

102 Situation (9): Joseph: Aw woonder hagh yah can faishion tuh stand thear i idleness unwar, when all on ems goan aght! Bud yahre a nowt, and its noa use talking yahll niver mend uh yer ill ways; bud go raight tuh t divil, like yer mother afore ye! Mrs. Heathcliff: You scandalous old hypocrite. Are not you afraid of being carried away bodily, whenever you mention the devils name? I warn you to refrain from provoking me, or Ill ask your abduction as a special favor. Stop, look here, Joseph. Ill show you how far Ive progressed in the Black Art I shall soon be competent to make a clear house of it. The red cow didnt die by chance: and your rheumatism can hardly be reckoned among providential visitations. Joseph: Oh, wicked, wicked! May the Lord deliver us from evil. Mrs. Heathcliff: No, reprobate! You are a castaway be off, or Ill hurt you seriously: Ill have you all modelled in wax and clay; and the first who passes the limits I fix, shall Ill not say what he shall be done to but, youll see! Go, Im looking at you! Joseph: Wicked. (T2: 375-6) Before analyzing this example, a possible interpretation of what Joseph has said is given (by the researcher) in order to understand it more clearly. He says: I wonder how you can fashion to stand there in idleness unaware, when all on them has gone out! But you are a naught, and its no use talking youll never mend uh your ill ways; but go right to the devil, like your mother before you!. The confrontation stage, here, needs some deep consideration. It involves three strategies: blaming, criticizing, and insulting. The blame is found in Josephs

103 exclamation of how Mrs. Heathcliff can stand there in idleness when all of them have gone out. The criticism is found in two places: first, when he states that she is a naught; and second, when he asserts that she will never mend her ill ways. The insult, in its turn, has been formed when he tells her to go right to the devil like her mother before her, which indicates that Mrs. Heathcliff ,and her mother, have been characterized as being bad because only bad people go to the devil. In other words, the insult has been formed by Josephs explicitly characterizing Mrs. Heathcliff and her mother as being bad (Cf. 2.4.1). In spite of the fact that there are three strategies employed in the confrontation stage; it is the insult only that has triggered argumentation in this example, that is, the confrontation stage is triggered by violating Mrs. Heathcliffs positive face through insulting her. This becomes evident when we examine what Mrs. Heathcliff has replied (Are you not whenever you mention the devils name?). In the second stage, Mrs. Heathcliff argues effectively but inappropriately. Her effective arguing is found in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims, that is, she is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Joseph as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, on the other hand, has not been appealed to by her, though she uses a question and the first name Joseph which are both polite. This is clearly shown when checking the words with which she addresses him scandalous and hypocrite (i.e. she insults him, (Cf. 2.4.1)), in addition to the threats she makes (viz. Ill hurt you seriously: Ill have you all modelled in wax and clay; and the first who passes the limits I fix, shall Ill not say what he shall be done to but, youll see). This means that Mrs.

104 Heathcliff has not been arguing appropriately; rather; she has been quarreling: both insults and threats are strategies of quarreling (Cf. 2.4.3). Quarrel is what this process has been concluded with, that is, it has been negatively concluded. The quarrel is initiated by Mrs. Heathcliff and completed by Joseph who insults her by calling her wicked; and an insult is a strategy of quarreling, as has just been stated. Situation (10): Heathcliff: Im trying to settle how I shall pay Hindley back. I dont care how long I wait, if I can only do it, at last. I hope he will not die before I do! Nelly: For shame, Heathcliff! It is for God to punish wicked people; we should learn to forgive. Heathcliff: No, God wont have the satisfaction that I shall. I only wish I knew the best way! Let me alone, and Ill plan it out: while Im thinking of that, I dont feel pain. (T2: 375-6) The confrontation stage, here, is activated by Heathcliffs making a claim (that is, paying Hindley back), and so it violates Nellys positive face. The claim is presented as an assertion (I shall pay). In the subsequent argumentation stage, Nelly argues effectively and appropriately. Her effective arguing is manifested in her keeping to the CP and its supportive maxims; so, she is informative (For shame, Heathcliff! It is for God to punish wicked people; we should learn to forgive), truthful (Heathcliff has not been objected or commented on what Nelly has said as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (For shame,

105 Heathcliff! It is for God to punish wicked people; we should learn to forgive). Her appropriate arguing is demonstrated in her keeping to the PP which is shown through her use of: a- The first name Heathcliff (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). b- The use of the inclusive we which means you we should learn (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f); and c- The past tense we should (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The finding in this stage, in addition to the ones arrived at in situations 11,12,13,15,16,17,18, 19, and 21 are compatible with the findings listed in Table (4) and shown in Figure (7) below. Together, they fulfill the second aim and verify the second hypothesis of this work. The concluding stage is negative: it is terminated in disagreement. The disagreement is explicitly expressed by Heathcliffs stating that even God wont have his (i.e. Heathcliffs) satisfaction. The disagreement is emphasized by Heathcliffs asking Nelly to leave him alone, meaning that he does not want to hear about that matter any more. The finding in this stage, as well as the ones in situations 12,13,16,17,18, and 21 match the findings listed in Table (4) and shown in Figure (7) below. Together, they fulfill the third aim and verify the third hypothesis of this study. Situation (11): Heathcliff: Nothing only look at the almanack on that wall. The crosses are for evenings you have spent with the Lintons, the dots for those spent with me Do you see, Ive marked everyday? Catherine: Yes very foolish; as if I took notice. And where is the senses of that?

106 Heathcliff: To show that I do take notice. Catherine: And should I always be sitting with you, what good do I get what do you talk about? You might be dumb or a baby for anything you say to amuse me, or for anything you do, either! Heathcliff: You never told me before that I talked too little, or that you disliked my company, Cathy! Catherine: It is no company at all, when people know nothing and say nothing. Heathcliff: (rises up and goes out). (T2: 413) The confrontation stage is initiated by Heathcliffs blaming Catherine for spending more time with the Lintons than with him, and thus he violates her negative face. The blame is formed implicitly in his statement (The crosses are for evenings you have spent with the Lintons, the dots for those spent with me). The finding here, in addition to those in situations 12,13,14,15,16,17,19, and 22, accord with the findings listed in Table (4) and shown in Figure (7) below. Together, they fulfill the first aim and verify the first hypothesis in this study. The subsequent argumentation stage involves Heathcliffs arguing

competently, i.e. effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing is demonstrated in his keeping to the CP and its four maxims; accordingly, he is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things he has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Catherine as being not true), relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information

107 supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing is employed by his keeping to the PP shown in his use of the first name Cathy to show rapport (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f), though Catherines responses have been hostile. The concluding stage, here, is negative: it ends with physical disengagement which is represented by Heathcliffs going out of the room. Situation (14): Catherine: How can you say I am harsh, you naughty fondling (cried the mistress amazed at the unreasonable assertion). You are surely losing your reason. When have I been harsh, tell me? Isabella: Yesterday, and now! Catherine: Yesterday! On what occasion? Isabella: In our walk along the moor; you told me to ramble where I pleased, while you sauntered on with Mr. Heathcliff! Catherine: And thats your notion of harshness? It was no hint that your company was superfluous; we didnt care whether you kept with us or not; I merely thought Heathcliffs talk would have nothing entertaining for your ears. Isabella: Oh, no, you wished me away, because you knew I liked to be there! Catherine: Is she sane? ( appealing to Nelly). Ill repeat our conversation, word for word, Isabella; and you point out any charm it could have had for you. Isabella: I dont mind the conversation, I wanted to be with Catherine: Well! Isabella: With him; and I wont be always sent off! You are a dog in the manger, Cathy, and desire no one to be loved but yourself!

108 Catherine: You are an impertinent little monkey! But Ill not believe this idiocy! It is impossible that you can covet the admiration of Heathcliff that you consider him an agreeable person! I hope I have misunderstood you, Isabella? (T2: 435-6) The confrontation stage is initiated by violating Catherines positive face through Isabellas accusing her of being harsh. The accusation is presented as an assertion as indicated by the words between brackets. In the subsequent stage, Catherine argues ambivalently. Ambivalence is not demonstrated in the effective arguing; Catherine has been effectively arguing for she has kept to the CP and its four maxims; so, she is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Isabella as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). It is in the appropriate arguing that Catherines ambivalence is seen. It is indicated in the strong way with which Catherine argues. First, she insults Isabella by calling her naughty fondling, and then she tells her that they (i.e. Catherine and Heathcliff) do not care whether or not Isabella remains with them, and that thing does not sound appropriate. Second, she makes a yes-no rhetorical question (Is she sane) addressed to Nelly in which she indicates that Isabella is insane, and that is another thing which seems inappropriate as well. Later on, she uses the first name Isabella to show rapport (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). However, this ambivalence has not come out without its consequences which are clearly shown in the concluding stage.

109 Argumentation is negatively concluded: it ends with a quarrel. The quarrel is started by Isabella who employs two strategies of quarrel. First, she insults Catherine by characterizing her as a dog in the manger (Cf. 2.4.1); second, she teases Catherine by saying and desire no one to be loved but yourself (Cf. 2.4.3). This makes Catherine respond by calling Isabella an impertinent little monkey, i.e. Catherine insults Isabella, in return, by characterizing her as a monkey. One last thing to be noted: though both Isabella and Catherine have used the first names in the same turns in which they have employed the strategies of a quarrel; that use has not been considered a strategy of politeness. This is so because the tone of the argumentation, as a whole, does not give any aid to consider their use as polite. Situation (15): Isabella: I love him more than you ever loves Edgar; and he might love me if you would let him! Catherine: I wouldnt be you for a kingdom, then! Nelly, help me to convince her of her madness. Tell her what Heathcliff is an unreclaimed creature, without refinement without cultivation; an arid wilderness of furze and whinstone. Id as soon put that little canary into the park on a winters day as recommend you to bestow your heart on him! It is deplorable ignorance of his character, child, and nothing else, which makes that dream enter your head. Pray dont imagine that he conceals depths of benevolence and affection beneath a stern exterior! Hes not a rough diamond a pearl-containing oyster of a rustic; a fierce, pitiless, wolfish man. I never say to him let this or that enemy alone, because it would be ungenerous or cruel to harm them, I say let them alone, because I should hate them to be wronged: and hed crush you, like a sparrows egg, Isabella, if he found you a troublesome charge. I know he couldnt love a Linton; and yet hed be quite capable of marrying your fortune and expectations. Avarice is growing with

110 him a besetting sin. Theres my picture, and Im his friend so much so, that had he thought seriously to catch you, I should, perhaps, have held my tongue, and let you fall into his trap. Isabella: For shame! for shame! You are worse than twenty foes, you poisonous friend! Catherine: Ah! You wont believe me, then. You think I speak from wicked selfishness? Isabella: Im certain you do, and I shudder at you. Catherine: Good! Try for yourself, if that be your spirit; I have done, and yield the argument to your saucy insolence (and she leaves the room). (T2: 436-7) The confrontation stage is, also, motivated by violating Catherines positive face when Isabella accuses Catherine of not letting Heathcliff love her (i.e. love Isabella) because Catherine does not give them any chance to be alone. The accusation is presented as an implicit assertion (he does not love me because you do not let him). Catherine, in the subsequent stage, argues competently, that is effectively and appropriately. She has been effectively arguing by keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (which is shown by her use of the verb know which denotes that the information following that verb can be treated as a fact (Yule, 1996: 27)), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim).

111 She has also been appropriately arguing by keeping to the PP, which is manifested via her use of the first name Isabella indicating rapport (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). The concluding stage is negative. It is terminated by a combination of strategies: quarrel and physical disengagement. The quarrel is initiated by Isabellas insulting Catherine by characterizing her as worse than twenty foes, and as a poisonous friend. That insult has been paid back by Catherines insulting Isabella by characterizing her as a saucy insolent. The physical disengagement is represented by Catherines abruptly leaving the room , when Isabella still has the will to continue arguing. Situation (16): Isabella: All, all is against me; she has blighted my single consolation. But she uttered falsehoods, didnt she? Mr. Heathcliff is not a fiend; he has an honorable soul, and a true one, or how could he remember her? Nelly: Banish him from your thoughts, miss. Hes a bird of bad omen; no mate for you. Mrs. Linton spoke strongly, and yet, I cant contradict her. She is better acquainted with his heart than I, or any one besides; and she never would represent him as worse than he is. Honest people dont hide their deeds. How has he been living? How has he got rich? Why is he staying at Wuthering Heights, the house of a man whom he abhors? They say Mr. Earnshaw is worse and worse since he came. They sit up all night together continually: and Hindley has been borrowing money on his land, and does nothing but play and drink, I heard only a week ago; it was Joseph who told me I met him at Gimmerton (and Nelly goes on telling Isabella what Joseph has told her). Now, Miss Linton, Joseph is an old rascal, but no liar; if his account of Heathcliffs conduct be true, you never think of desiring such a husband, would you?

112 Isabella: You are leagued with the rest, Ellen. Ill not listen to your slanders. What malevolence you must have to wish to convince me that there is no happiness in the world. (T2: 437) The confrontation stage, here, begins with Isabellas accusing Catherine of telling falsehoods about Heathcliff; so Catherines positive face is violated. Although the accusation is not directed to Nelly, yet she chooses to defend Catherine because Nelly knows that what Catherine says is true. The accusation is presented as an assertion (she uttered falsehoods, didnt she) followed by a tag question which is intended to elicit confirmation from the listener. In the subsequent argumentation stage, Nelly does not argue explicitly about the accusation; rather, she tells Isabella two things: first, to banish Heathcliff from her thoughts; and second, Catherines speech is correct though it has been said in a tough manner. This means that Nelly is implicitly defending Catherine. To do so, she has kept to the CP and its four maxims, i.e. she is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Isabella as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). Accordingly, Nelly has been arguing effectively. She has also been arguing appropriately by keeping to the PP which is employed via: a- Her use of the title Miss which has been repeated for twice to show deference (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b).

113 b- Her use of the past tense (you would never think) which gives the addressee the impression of having freedom of the type of response required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and c- Her use of the tag question (would you?) in the past tense which smoothens the impact of imposition (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.c). The concluding stage comes negatively for it ends with disagreement. The disagreement is explicitly expressed by Isabellas asserting that she will not listen to Nellys words, which Isabella calls slanders, in order to emphasize her disagreement with what has been said. Situation (18): Heathcliff: Before you leave this house, I must exact a promise from you, that youll get me an interview with her consent or refuse, I will see her! What do you say? Nelly: I say, Mr. Heathcliff, you must not you never shall through my means. Another encounter between you and the master would kill her altogether. Heathcliff: With your aid that may be avoided, and should there be danger of such an event should he be the cause of adding a single trouble more to her existence Why, I think, I shall be justified in going to extremes! I wish you had sincerity enough to tell me whether Catherine would suffer greatly from his loss. The fear that she would restrains me: and there you see the distinction between our feelings Had he been in my place, and I in his, though I hated him with a hatred that turned my life to gall, I never would have raised a hand against him. You may look incredulous, if you please! I never would have banished him from her society, as long as she desired his. The moment her regard ceased, I would have torn his heart out, and drank his blood! But, till then if you dont believe me, you dont

114 know me till then, I would have died by inches before I touched a single hair of his head! Nelly: And yet, you have no scruples in completely ruining all hopes of her perfect restoration, by thrusting yourself into her remembrance, now, when she has nearly forgotten you, and involving her in a new tumult of discord and distress. Heathcliff: You suppose she has nearly forgotten me? Oh Nelly! you know she has not! You know as well as I do, that for every thought she spends on Linton, she spends a thousand on me! At a most miserable period of my life, I had a notion of the kind: it haunted me on my return to the neighbourhood, last summer, but only her own assurance could make me admit the horrible idea again. And then, Linton would be nothing, nor Hindley, nor all the dreams that ever I dreamt. Two words would comprehend my future, death and hell existence, after losing her, would be hell. Yes I was a fool to fancy for a moment that she valued Edgar Lintons attachment more than mine If he loved with all the powers of his puny being, he couldnt love as much in eighty years, as could I in a day. And Catherine has a heart as deep as I have; the sea could be readily contained in that horse-trough, as her whole affection to be monopolized by him Tush! He is scarcely a degree dearer to her than her dog, or her horse It is not in him to be loved like me, how can she love in him what he has not? Nelly: (intends to leave) Heathcliff: Put that down! You are not going yet Come here now, Nelly I must either persuade or compel you to aid me in fulfilling my determination to see Catherine, and that without delay I swear that I mediate no harm; I dont desire to cause any disturbance, or to exasperate or insult Mr. Linton; I only wish to hear from herself how she is, and why she has been ill; and to ask, if anything that I

115 could do would be of use to her. Last night, I was in the Grange garden six hours, and Ill return tonight; and every night Ill haunt the place, and every day, till I find an opportunity of entering. If Edgar Linton meets me, I shall not hesitate to knock him down, and give him enough to ensure his quiescence while I stay If his servants oppose me, I shall threaten them off with these pistols But wouldnt it be better to prevent my coming in contact with them or their master? And you could do it so easily! Id warn you when I came, and then you might let me in unobserved, as soon as she was alone, and watch till I departed, your conscience quite calm you would be hindering mischief. Nelly: The commonest occurrence startles her painfully. She is all nerves, and she couldnt bear the surprise, Im positive Dont persist, sir! or else, I shall be obliged to inform my master of your designs and hell take measures to secure his house and its inmates from such unwarrantable intrusions! (T2: 467-71) The confrontation stage, in this lengthy example, is activated by violating Nellys negative face through making a request. The request (which is made by Heathcliff) is presented as a question about whether or not Nelly will promise him to arrange an interview, for him, with Catherine. In the subsequent stage, Heathcliff has been arguing effectively and appropriately. His effective arguing needs some further investigation. He has kept to the CP and three of its maxims, viz. quantity (i.e. he is informative), relevance (i.e. he is relevant), and manner (i.e. he is clear, brief, and orderly). What remains, then, is the quality maxim: this maxim has been violated only once in the beginning of his arguing (I think I shall be justified). The use of the verb think indicates that he is not quite sure of what he says; yet Heathcliff is not considered

116 argumentatively ineffective, the violation of only one maxim does not make the whole process collapse. However, in another place, Heathcliff has compensated for that violation by using the verb know (you know as well as I do) to denote that what follows that verb can be treated as a fact (as indicated before, See situation (15) above), and so he is truthful. As far as the appropriate arguing is concerned, Heathcliff has kept to the PP through: a- His use of the first name Nelly which has been repeated twice to show rapport and equality (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). b- His use of the question (wouldnt it be) which is more polite because it is the most indirect (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). c- His use of the past tense (wouldnt it be, you could do, you might let) which gives the addressee the freedom of giving the response required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and d- His use of the negative form (wouldnt it be) which gives the addressee the freedom of giving the response required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The argumentation is negatively concluded: it is terminated in disagreement. The disagreement is implicitly expressed by Nellys commanding Heathcliff not to persist arguing, and then it has been reassured by making a threat (I shall be obliged to inform my master). Situation (19): Catherine: You have killed me and thriven on it, I think. I wish I could hold you till we were both dead! I shouldnt care what you suffered. I care nothing for your sufferings. Why shouldnt you suffer? I do. Will you forget me? Will you be happy when I am in the earth! Will you say twenty years hence, ' That's the grave of Catherine Earnshaw. I loved her long ago, and was wretched to

117 lose her; but it is past. I've loved many others since: my children are dearer to me than she was; and at death I shall not rejoice that I am going to her: I shall be sorry that I must lose them!' Will you say so, Heathcliff? Heathcliff: Don't torture me till I'm as mad as yourself! Are you possessed with a devil to talk in that manner to me when you are dying? Do you reflect that all those words will be branded in my memory, and eating deeper eternally after you have left? You know you lie to say I have killed you; and , Catherine, you know that I could as soon forget you as my existence! Is it not sufficient for your internal selfishness that, while you are at peace, I shall writhe in the torment of hell? Catherine: I shall not be at peace. I'm not wishing you greater torment than I have, Heathcliff. I only wish us never be parted: and should a word of mine distress you hereafter, think I feel the same distress underground, and for my own sake, forgive me. Come here and kneel down again! You never harmed me in your life. Nay, if you nurse anger, that will be worse to remember than my harsh words! Wont you come here again? Do! (T2: 475-6) The confrontation stage, here, is motivated by violating Heathcliffs positive face when Catherine accuses him of killing and forgetting her. Her accusation is presented in two ways: as an assertion (you have killed me), and as a series of questions which indicate (from Catherines point of view) that Heathcliff will forget her sooner or later. In the subsequent argumentation stage, Heathcliff argues effectively and appropriately. His effective arguing is demonstrated in his keeping to the CP and its four maxims; so, he is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (which is shown via his use of the verb know),

118 relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). His appropriate arguing, on the other hand, is manifested in his keeping to the PP which is employed by: a- His use of questions (Are you possessed, Do you reflect, Is it not sufficient) which are polite as they are the most indirect (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). b- His use of the first name Catherine which shows rapport (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f); and c- His use of the negative form (Is it not sufficient) which gives the addressee the freedom of giving the response required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The concluding stage is positive for it ends with a combination of strategies: apology and agreement. The apology is indicated by Catherines asking for forgiveness, which is one of the strategies of apologizing (Cf. 2.3.3.2.3). The agreement, on the other hand, is implied in her saying (You never harmed me in your life). This is so because killing and forgetting harm, and since he has never harmed her in his life, then he has neither killed nor forgotten her. Situation (20): Linton: My papa scorns yours. He calls him a sneaking fool. Cathy: Yours is a wicked man, and you are very naughty to dare to repeat what he says He must be wicked, to have made aunt Isabella leave him as she did! Linton: She didnt leave him, you shant contradict me! Cathy: She did! Linton: Well, Ill tell you something: your mother hated your father, now then. Cathy: Oh!

119 Linton: And she loved mine! Cathy: You little liar! I hate you now. Linton: She did, she did. Nelly: Hush, Master Heathcliff! Thats your fathers tale too, I suppose. Linton: It isnt you hold your tongue! She did, she did, Catherine, she did, she did! (T2: 529) The confrontation stage is initiated by violating Cathys positive face when Linton insults her. The insult is performed by calling her father as a fool, i.e. he has made a prediction about part of her social identity, that is, her father (Cf. 2.4.1). This has led Cathy, in the subsequent stage, to defend herself by keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Linton as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). It can be said, then, that she has been arguing effectively. The appropriate arguing has not been appealed to here, i.e. Cathy has not kept to the PP; rather, she has insulted Linton for three times: first, by calling his father as a wicked; second, by characterizing him (i.e. Linton) as a naughty; and third, by calling him a liar. This means that Cathy has been quarreling instead of arguing appropriately.

120 Quarrel is what this example ends with, so it is negatively concluded. The quarrel is represented by Lintons insisting on telling Cathy that her mother hates her father. This means that he insists on teasing her, and teasing is one of the strategies of quarreling (Cf. 2.4.3). Situation (22): Hareton: A companion? When she hates me, and does not think me fit to wipe her shoon! Nay, if it made me a king, Id not be scorned for seeking her good will any more. Cathy: It is not I who hate you, it is you who hate me! You hate me as much as Mr. Heathcliff does, and more. Hareton: Youre a damned liar, why have I made him angry, by taking your part then, a hundred times? and that, when you sneered at, and despised me, and Go on plaguing me, and Ill step in yonder, and say you worried me out of the kitchen! Cathy: I didnt know you took my part, and I was miserable and bitter at everybody; but, now I thank you, and beg you to forgive me, what can I do besides? (T2: 579) The confrontation stage is activated by violating Cathys positive face through Haretons accusing her of hating him. The accusation is presented as an echo exclamation. (The echo exclamation, as Quirk et al. (1985: 837) clarify, repeats part or all of a preceding utterance. The form of the utterance to be repeated may be declarative, interrogative, imperative, or even exclamative. As regards this example, it has the form of a declarative). In the second subsequent argumentation stage, Hareton argues effectively but inappropriately. The effective arguing is manifested in his keeping to the CP

121 and its four maxims; so, he is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things he has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Cathy as being not true), relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing has not been kept to here; rather, it has escalated to a kind of quarrel. The quarrel is started by Cathy who teases Hareton by telling him that he hates her more than Heathcliff. This, in turn, has led Hareton to call her a damned liar ,i.e. he has insulted her; and both teasing and insulting are strategies of quarreling (Cf. 2.4.3). Despite the fact that the appropriate arguing has not been kept to; argumentation, here, has been positively concluded. It ends with asking for forgiveness, which is one of the strategies apologizing (Cf. 2.3.3.2.3). It can be said, then, that argumentation is concluded with an apology. Situation (23): Mrs. Markham: But my dear, I call that doting. You should try to suppress such foolish fondness, as well as to save your son from ruin as your self from ridicule. Mrs. Graham: Ruin, Mrs. Markham? Mrs. Markham: Yes; it is spoiling the child. Even at his age, he ought not to be always tied to his mothers apron string; he should learn to be ashamed of it. Mrs. Graham: Mrs. Markham, I beg you will not say such things in his presence, at least. I trust my son will never be ashamed to love his mother! (T3: 615) The confrontation stage is started by Mrs. Markhams advising Mrs. Graham to suppress the latters childs fondness of his mother, thus the

122 confrontation stage in this example involves violating Mrs. Grahams negative face . The advice is presented as an assertion (You should try to suppress). In the subsequent stage, Mrs. Markham argues effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing is demonstrated in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Mrs. Graham as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, in its turn, is shown in her keeping to the PP via the use of the past tense (he should learn) which gives the addressee the impression of having freedom in giving the kind of response required (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). There is one important thing which must be indicated here: in spite of the fact that it is not the child who has been being addressed (but his mother instead) here; Mrs. Markhams arguing has been regarded appropriate because she has told the mother that her child (should learn), and since he is still a child, then he cannot learn by himself; there should be someone who makes him learn. In the case of that child, it is his mother who should do so; accordingly, the speech is addressed to the mother and not to the child. The finding in this stage, as well as those found in the rest of the situations in this novel, go along with the findings listed in Table (5) and shown in Figure (8) below. Together, they fulfill the second aim and verify the second hypothesis in this study.

123 The concluding stage comes negatively for it ends with disagreement. The disagreement is implied in Mrs. Grahams requesting Mrs. Markham not to say such things in the presence of her child, indicating that she has not been convinced by what the former has said, and so, she disagrees with her. Situation (25): Mr. Markham: You were wishing to see Marmion, Mrs. Graham; and here it is, if you will be so kind as to take it. Mrs. Graham: Im sorry to offend you Mr. Markham, but unless I pay for the book, I cannot take it. Mr. Markham: Why cannot you? Mrs. Graham: Because, Mr. Markham: Why cannot you? Mrs. Graham: Because, I dont like to put myself under obligations that I can never repay I am obliged to you already, for your kindness to my son; but his grateful affection, and your good feelings must reward you for that. Mr. Markham: Nonsense! Then you wont take the book? Mrs. Graham: I will gladly take it, if you will let me pay for it. You think yourself insulted Mr. Markham I wish I could make you understand that that I Mr. Markham: I do understand you, perfectly. You think that if you were to accept that trifle from me now, I should presume upon it hereafter; but you are mistaken: if you will only oblige me by taking it, believe me, I shall build no hopes upon it, and consider this no precedent for future favours: and it is nonsense to talk about putting yourself under obligations to me when you must know that in such a case the obligation is entirely on my side, the favour on yours.

124 Mrs. Graham: Well then Ill take you at your word (and she returns the odious money to her purse). (T3: 646) The confrontation stage begins with violating Mrs. Grahams negative face through Mr. Markhams requesting her to take the book. The request is explicitly presented as a request (if you will be so kind as to take it). The subsequent argumentation stage in this example is unlike all the others discussed so far. It is double-roled, i.e. it is not limited to one speaker trying to justify (or refute) something; rather, the two interactants (Mr. Markham and Mrs. Graham) switch places in the end (that is, one takes the place of the other). To make it clearer, Mrs. Graham, first, tries to convince Mr. Markham of her inability to accept his request; but instead of being convinced (or not) by her view, Mr. Markham holds the place whereby he tries to convince her of accepting the request (and ,finally, he succeeds). Accordingly, the subsequent argumentation stage, here, will be investigated twice; the first is Mrs. Grahams, and the second is Mr. Markhams. As regards Mrs. Grahams argumentation, it has been effective and appropriate. Its effectiveness is manifested in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; hence, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Mr. Markham as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, on the other hand, is demonstrated by her keeping to the PP through her use of the title Mr. which shows deference (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). Mr. Markhams argumentation, in its turn, has

125 also been characterized by effectiveness and appropriateness. Its effectiveness is shown is his keeping to the CP and its four maxims; so, he is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things he has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Mrs. Graham as being not true), relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriateness is demonstrated in his keeping to the PP via: a- His use of the conditional clauses if you were, if you will which have been employed twice (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d). b- His use of the past tense if you were to accept (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and c- His use of the downtoner if you will only oblige me by taking it (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.d). The concluding stage is positive: it shows agreement. The agreement is not shown in what Mrs. Graham says as it is in what she does (by putting the money back into her purse), yet what she says sheds some light on her (conditioned) agreement. This is especially shown in the use of well then which denotes that she agrees with him ( implied in the use of well) after hearing what he has said (implied in the use of then). The finding here, as well as the ones conducted in situations 24, 29,34,38,40,41,44 ,45, and 47, match the findings listed in Table (5) and shown in Figure (8) below. Together, they fulfill the third aim, but reject the third hypothesis (that is, disagreement is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting out of argumentation in the three novels). On the basis of this finding, it can be seen that the third hypothesis of this study has been partly verified (in the first and second novels) and partly rejected (in this novel).

126 Situation (26): Rose: Well, but if I were you, I wouldnt have so much to do with Mrs. Graham. Gilbert: Why Rose, are you, too, giving in to the prevailing opinion? Rose: No, but Ive heard so much about her lately, both at the Wilsons and the vicarage; and besides, mamma says, if she were a proper person, she would not be living there by herself and dont you remember, Gilbert, all that about the false name to the picture; and how she explained it saying she had friends or acquaintances from whom she wished her present residence to be concealed, and that she was afraid of their tracing; and then, how suddenly she started up and left the room when that person came whom she took good care not to let us catch a glimpse of, and who Arthur, with such an air of mystery, told us was his mammas friend? Gilbert: Yes Rose, I remember it all; and I can forgive your uncharitable conclusions; for perhaps, if I did not know her myself, I should pull all these things together, and believe the same as you do; but thank God, I do know her, and I should be unworthy the name of a man, if I could believe anything that was said against her, unless I heard it from her own lips. I should as soon believe such things of you Rose. Rose: Oh, Gilbert! Gilbert: Well, do you think I could believe anything of the kind, whatever the Wilsons and Millwards dread to whisper? Rose: I should hope not indeed! Gilbert: And why not? Because I know you well, and I know her just as well.

127 Rose: Oh, no! you know nothing of her former life; and last year at this time, you did not know that such a person existed. Gilbert: No matter. There is such a thing as looking through a persons eye into the heart, and learning more of the height, and breadth, and depth of anothers soul in one hour, than it might take you a life time to discover, if he or she were not disposed to reveal it, or if you had not the sense to understand it. Rose: Then you are going to see her this evening? Gilbert: To be sure I am! (T3: 660) The confrontation stage is motivated by Roses violating her brothers, i.e. Gilberts, negative face when advising him not to have much to do with Helen. The advice is presented as a statement (if I were you, I wouldnt have so much to do with Mrs. Graham). In the subsequent stage, Rose argues effectively and appropriately. Effectiveness manifests itself in Roses keeping to the CP and its maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Gilbert as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). Appropriateness, on the other hand, is shown in her keeping to the PP via the use of: a- Her use of the question dont you remember (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). b- Her use of negation dont you (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and

128 c- Her use of the first name Gilbert for two times (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). The concluding stage is negative. It is terminated in disagreement which is implied in his asserting his going to see Helen. This indicates that he has not been convinced by what his sister has said, and so he disagrees with her.

Situation (28): Mrs. Markham: At any rate, you will call to-morrow. Whether it be true or false, exaggerated or otherwise we shall like to know how he is. Gilbert: Fergus may go. Mrs. Markham: Why not you? Gilbert: He has more time: I am busy just now. Mrs. Markham: Oh! but Gilbert, how can you be so composed about it? You wont mind business, for an hour or two, in a case of this sort when your friend is at the point of death! Gilbert: He is not, I tell you. Mrs. Markham: For anything you know, he may be: you cant tell till you have seen him. At all events, he must have met with some terrible accident, and you ought to see him: hell take it very unkind of you if you dont. Gilbert: Confound it! I cant. He and I have not been on good terms, of late. Mrs. Markham: O my dear boy! Surely, Surely, you are not so unforgiving as to carry your little differences to such a length as Gilbert: Little differences, indeed!

129 Mrs. Markham: Well, but only remember the occasion! Think how Gilbert: Well ,well, dont bother me now- Ill see about it (and my seeing about it was to send Fergus next morning). (T3: 677-8) The confrontation stage is started by Mrs. Markhams violating her sons (i.e. Gilberts) negative face when she commands him to visit a friend of theirs. The command is presented as an assertion (you will call to-morrow). In the subsequent argumentation stage, Mrs. Markham argues

competently, that is, effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing is shown in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; as such, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (which is manifested in her use of the qualifier Surely which has been repeated twice), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing is demonstrated in her keeping to the PP via: a- Her showing rapport and equality via two means: the use of the first mane Gilbert; and the use of the endearment dear (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f). b- Her use of the question how can you (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). c- Her use of the negative form you are not so unforgiving (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and d- Her use of the downtoner only remember (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.d). The concluding stage is negative. It ends with disagreement which is implied in Gilberts telling his mother not to bother him about that matter, indicating that he has not been convinced by what his mother has said; as, hence,

130 he disagrees with her. The disagreement is reassured by sending his brother instead of him.

Situation (30): The Aunt: Tell me, my dear, what are your objections to him? Do you deny that he is an upright, honorouble man? Helen: No. The Aunt: Do you deny that he id sensible, sober, respectable? Helen: No; he may be all this, but The Aunt: But Helen! How much men do you expect to meet with in the world? Upright, honorouble, sensible, sober respectable! Is this such an every day character, that you should reject the possessor of such noble qualities, without a moments hesitation? Yes, noble I may call them; for, think of the full meaning of each, and how many inestimable virtues they include (and I might add any more to the list), and consider that all this is laid at your feet: it is in your power to secure this inestimable blessing for life a worthy and excellent husband, who loves you tenderly, but not too fondly so as to blind him to your faults, and will be your guide throughout lifes pilgrimage, and your partner in eternal bliss! Think how Helen: But I hate him, aunt. The Aunt: Hate him, Helen! Is this a Christian spirit? you hate him? and he so good a man! Helen: Firstly, he is, at least, forty years old considerably more should I think, and I am but eighteen; secondly, he is narrow-minded and bigoted in the extreme;

131 thirdly, his tastes and feelings are wholly dissimilar to mine; fourthly, his looks, voice, and manner are particularly displeasing to me; and finally, I have an aversion to his whole person that I never can surmount. The Aunt: Then you ought to surmount it! And please to compare him for a moment with Mr. Huntingdon, and, good looks apart (which contribute nothing to the merit of the man, or to the happiness of married life, and which you have so often professed to hold in the light esteem), tell me which is the better man. Helen: I have no doubt that Mr. Huntingdon is a much better man than you think him, but we are not talking about him, now, but about Mr. Boarham; and as I would rather grow, live and die in single blessedness then than be his wife; it is but right that I should tell him so at once, and put him out of suspense so let me go. (T3: 690) The confrontation stage is initiated by the aunts commanding Helen to tell her the reasons of her (i.e. Helens) refusal, and by so doing she violates Helens negative face. The command is explicitly issued as a command (Tell me). The subsequent stage involves the competent arguing of the aunt, i.e. she argues effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing manifests itself in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Helen as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing, in its turn, is demonstrated in the keeping to the PP via: a- Her use of the first name Helen for two times (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f); and

132 b- Her use of the questions Do you deny, How much men do you, Is this such an every day, Is this a Christian spirit (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). The concluding stage is negative. It ends with disagreement which is explicitly expressed. It is shown in Helens asserting her preference to die in single blessedness than to marry him. Situation (34): Arthur: It is nothing you have done or said; it is something that you are. You are too religious. Now I like a woman to be religious, and I think you piety one of your greatest charms, but then, like all other good things, it may be carried too far. To my thinking, a womans religion ought not to lessen her devotion to her earthly lord. She should have enough to purify and eternalize her soul, but not enough to refine away her heart, and raise her above all human sympathies. Helen: And am I above all human sympathies? Arthur: No, darling; but you are making more progress towards the saintly condition than I like; for, all these two hours, I have been thinking of you and wanting to catch your eye, and you were so absorbed in your devotions that you had not even a glance to spare for me I declare, it is enough to make one jealous of ones Master which is very wrong, you know; so dont excite such wicked passions again, for my souls sake. Helen: I will give my whole heart and soul to my Maker if I can, and not one atom more of it to you than He allows. What are you, sir, that you should set yourself up as a god, and presume to dispute possession of my heart with Him to whom o owe all I have and all I am, every blessing I ever did or ever can enjoy and yourself among the rest if you are a blessing, which I am half inclined to doubt.

133 Arthur: Dont be so hard upon me, Helen; and dont pinch my arm so, youre squeezing your fingers into the bone. Helen: Arthur, you dont love me half as much as I do you; and yet, if you loved me far less than you do, I would not complain, provided you loved your Maker more. I should rejoice to see you at any time, so deeply absorbed in your devotions that you had not a single thought to spare for me. But, indeed, I should lose nothing by the change, for the more you loved your God the more deep and pure and true would be your love to me. Arthur: But look here, Helen what can a man do with such a head as this? You see I was not made to be a saint. If God meant me to be religious, why didnt He give me a proper organ of veneration? Helen: You are like the servant who instead of employing his one talent in his masters service, resorted it to him unimproved, alleging, as an excuse, that he knew him to be a hard man, reaping where he had not sown and gathering where he had not strawed. Of him, to whom less is given, less will be required; but our utmost exertions are required of us all. You are not without the capacity of veneration, and faith and hope, and conscience and reason, and every other requisite to a Christians character, if you choose to employ them; but all our talents increase in the using, and every faculty, both good and bad, strengthens by exercise; therefore, if you choose to use the bad or those which tend to evil till they become your master, and neglect the good till they dwindle away, you have only yourself to blame. But you have talent, Arthur natural endowments, both of heart and mind, and temper such as many a better Christian would be glad to possess if you would only employ them in Gods service. I should never expect

134 to see you a devotee, but it is quite possible to be a good Christian without ceasing to be a happy, merry-hearted man.

Arthur: You speak like an oracle, Helen, and all you say is indisputably true. (T3: 734-5) The confrontation stage is activated by Arthurs criticizing Helen for being too religious, hence he violates her positive face. The criticism is presented as an assertion (you are too religious). The finding in this stage, in addition to those in situations 27,29,32,36,37,38,40 41,42,44, and 48, are compatible with the findings listed in Table (5) and shown in Figure (8) below. Together, they fulfill the first aim and verify the first hypothesis of this study. In the subsequent stage, Helen argues effectively and appropriately. Her effective arguing is demonstrated in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that she has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Arthur as being not true), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). Her appropriate arguing is shown in her keeping to the PP employed through: a- The use of a question am I above all (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). b- The use of the title sir (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). c- The use of the first name Arthur (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.f).

135 d- The use of the conditional clause which has been employed for four times (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.d). e- The use of the past tense if you loved me, I would, the more you loved (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and f- The use of the downtoner only (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.d). The concluding stage is positive for it ends with agreement. The agreement is explicitly expressed via making an assertion all you say is indisputably true. Situation (41): Helen: Is she not exactly the wife you wanted? Did you not tell Mr. Huntingdon you must have one that would submit to anything without a murmur, and never blame you, whatever you did? Ralph: True, but we shouldnt always have what we want: it spoils the best of us, doesnt it? How can I help playing the deuce when I see its all one to her whether I behave like a Christian or like a scoundrel such as nature made me? and how can I help teazing her when shes so invitingly meek and mim when she lies down like a spaniel at my feet and never so as squeaks to tell me thats enough? Helen: If you are a tyrant by nature, the temptation is strong, I allow; but no generous mind delights to oppress the weak, but rather to cherish and protect. Ralph: I dont oppress her; but its so confounded flat to be always cherishing and protecting; and then how can I tell that I am oppressing her when she melts away and makes no sign? I sometimes think she has no feeling at all; and then I go on till she cries and that satisfies me. Helen: Then you do delight to oppress her.

136 Ralph: I dont, I tell you! only when Im in a bad humour or a particularly good one, and want to afflict for the pleasure of comforting; or when she looks flat and wants shaking up a bit. And sometimes, she provokes me by crying for nothing, and wont tell me what its for; and then, I allow, it enrages me past bearing especially, when Im not my own man. Helen: As is no doubt generally the case on such occasions. But in future. Mr. Hattersley, when you see her looking flat or crying for nothing (as you call it), ascribe it all to yourself: be assured it is something you have done amiss, or your general misconduct that distresses her. Ralph: I dont believe it. If it were, she would tell me so! I dont like that way of moping and fretting in silence, and saying nothing its not honest. How can she expect me to mend my ways at that rate? Helen: Perhaps she gives you credit for having more sense than you possess, and deludes herself with the hope that you will one day see your own errors and repair them, if left to your own reflection. Ralph: None of your sneers, Mrs. Huntingdon! I have the sense to see that Im not always quite correct but sometimes I think thats no great matter, as long as I injure nobody but myself Helen: It is a great matter, both to yourself (as you will hereafter find to your cost) and to all connected with you most especially your wife but indeed, it is nonsense to talk about injuring no one but yourself; it is impossible to injure yourself especially by such acts as we allude to without injuring hundreds, if not thousands, besides, in a greater or less degree, either by the evil you do or the good you leave undone.

137 Ralph: And as I was saying or would have said if you hadnt taken me up so short I sometimes think I should do better if I were joined to one that would always remind me when I was wrong, and give me a motive for doing good and eschewing evil by decidedly showing her approval of the one, and disapproval of the other. Helen: If you had no higher motive than the approval of your fellow mortal, it would do you little good. Ralph: Well, but if I had a mate that would not always be yielding, and always equally kind, but that would have the spirit to stand at bay now and then, and honestly tell me her mind at all times such a one as yourself for instance now if I went on with you as I do with her when Im in London, youd make the house too hot to hold me at times, Ill be sworn. Helen: You mistake me: Im no termagant. Ralph: Well, all the better for that, for I cant stand contradiction in a general way and Im as fond of my own will as another: only I think too much of it doesnt answer for any man. Helen: Well, I would never contradict you without a cause, but certainly I would always let you know what I thought of your conduct; and if you oppresses me, in body, mind, or estate, you should at least have no reason to suppose I didnt mind it. Ralph: I know that my lady; and I think my little wife were to follow the same plan it would be better for us both. (T3: 793-4)

138 The confrontation stage is started by Helens blaming Ralph for complaining that his wife never blames or criticizes him, no matter whatever he does, and thus she violates his positive face. The blame is presented in two yes-no rhetorical questions. The subsequent argumentation stage involves Helens effective and appropriate arguing. The effectiveness of arguing is shown in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; so, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (although the qualifier perhaps has been used, yet it does not violate the quality maxim, because in the context in which that qualifier has been used, Helen has been talking on behalf of another person, i.e. she cannot aver what Milicent has in mind; accordingly, her use of perhaps is justified, and this can be proved by her use of the certainly when she talks about herself to indicate that she is quite certain of what concerns her), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly (See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriateness of arguing, in its turn, is shown in her keeping to the PP via: a- Her use of the title Mr. (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). b- Her use of the conditional clause if left to, if you had no, if you oppressed (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d); and c- Her use of the past tense you had no higher, it would do, you oppressed me, you should at least (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The concluding stage is positive as it is terminated in agreement. The agreement is implied in his saying that he knows all what Helen has said (and since he uses the verb know, then he agrees that what she has said has been treated as a truth that he cannot deny). Besides, it is also implied in his saying that if his wife

139 were to follow the same plan presented by Helen, then it would be better for them both; the thing which emphasizes agreement. Situation (42): Ralph: Isnt it a shame, Mrs. Huntingdon? I struck Walter Hargrave when I was drunk, the second night after we came, and hes turned a cold shoulder on me ever since; though I asked his pardon the very morning after it was done! Walter: Your manner of asking it, and the clearness with which you remembered the whole transaction, showed you were not too drunk to be fully conscious of what you were about, and quite responsible for the deed. Ralph: You wanted to interfere between me and my wife, and that is enough to provoke any man. Walter: You justify it then? Ralph: No, I tell you I wouldnt have done it if I hadnt been under excitement; and if you choose to bear malice for it, after all the handsome things Ive said do so and be damned! Walter: I would refrain from such language on a ladys presence, at least. Ralph: What have I said? Nothing but Heavens truth he will be damned, wont he, Mrs. Huntingdon, if he doesnt forgive his brothers trespasses? Mrs. Huntingdon: You ought to forgive him, Mr. Hargrave, since he asks you. Walter: Do you say so? Then I will. (T3: 795)

140 The confrontation stage is activated by violating Walters positive face when Ralph criticizes Walter for not forgiving him for what has been done before. The criticism is presented in a yes-no rhetorical question followed by a statement. In the subsequent argumentation stage, Ralph argues effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing is proved in his keeping to the CP and its four maxims; so, he is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (all the things that he has mentioned have not been objected or commented on by Walter as being not true), relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing is shown in his keeping to the PP which is employed by: a- The use of the conditional clause if you choose, if he doesnt forgive (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d). b- The use of the question what have I said (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). c- The use of the tag question wont he (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.c); and d- The use of the title Mrs. (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). The concluding stage is positive: it ends with an apology. Apology is realized by asking for forgiveness which is indirectly expressed, i.e. Ralph uses the conditional clause to ask for forgiveness instead of saying forgive me. Situation (43): Mr. Hargrave: By all means, leave him! But NOT alone! Helen! let me protect you! Helen: Never! while Heaven spares my reason.

141 Mr. Hargrave: I must not be denied! You have no reason now: you are flying in the face of Heavens decrees. God has designed me to be your comfort and protector I feel it I know it as certainly as if a voice from Heaven declared Ye twain shall be one flesh and you spurn me from you Helen: Let me go, Mr. Hargrave! Let me go! (and she sees a shadow) Mr. Hargrave: That is Grimbsy. He will report what he has seen to Huntingdon and all the rest, with such embellishments as he thinks proper. He has no love for you, Mrs. Huntingdon no reverence for your sex no belief in virtue no admiration for its image. He will give such a version of this story as will leave no doubt at all, about your character, in the minds of those who hear it. Your fair fame is gone; and nothing that I or you can say ever retrieve it. But give me the power to protect you, and show the villain that dares to insult! Helen: No one has ever dared to insult me as you are doing now! Mr. Hargrave: I do not insult you. I worship you. You are my angel my divinity! I lay my powers at your feet and you must and shall accept them! I will be your consoler and defender! and if your conscience upbraid for it, say I overcame you and you could not choose but yield! Helen: Stand off, then! And listen to me. I dont like you, and if I were divorced from my husband or if he were dead, I would not marry you. There now! I hope youre satisfied. (T3: 839-40) The confrontation stage is initiated by violating Helens negative face through making a suggestion. The suggestion (which is made by Hargrave) is explicitly presented as a suggestion (let me protect you).

142 In the subsequent argumentation stage, Hargrave argues competently, that is, effectively and appropriately. His effective arguing is demonstrated in his keeping to the CP and its supportive maxims; as such, he is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (which is proved by his use of the verb know and the qualifier certainly) relevant (he has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). His appropriate arguing is proved in his keeping to the PP through: a- His use of the title Mrs. (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.2.b). b- His use of the conditional clause if your conscience (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d); and c- His use of the past tense you could (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b). The concluding stage is negative: it ends with disagreement. The disagreement is explicitly expressed by her asserting I dont like you; I will not marry you. Situation (45): Rachel: I have no home, maam, but with you, and if I leave you, Ill never go into place again as long as I live. Helen: But I cant afford to live like a lady, now. I must be my own maid and my childs nurse. Rachel: What signifies? Youll want somebody to clean and wash, and cook, wont you? I can do all that; and never mind the wages Ive my bits o savings yet, and if you wouldnt take me, I should have to find my own board and lodging out of em somewhere, or else work among strangers and its what Im not used to so you can please yourself maam.

143 Helen: I should like it above all things, Rachel, and Id give you such wages as I could afford such as I should give to any servant of all work I might employ; but dont you see I should be dragging you down with me, when you have done nothing to deserve it? Rachel: Oh, fiddle! Helen: And besides, my future way of living will be so widely different to the past so different to all you have accustomed to Rachel: Do you think, maam, I cant bear what my missis can? surely Im not so proud and so dainty as that comes to and my little master too, God bless him? Helen: But Im young, Rachel; I shant mind it; and Arthur is young too it will be nothing to him. Rachel: Nor me either: Im not so old but what I can stand hard fare and hard work, if its only to help and comfort them as Ive loved like my own barns for all Im too old to bide the thoughts o leaving em in trouble and danger, and going amongst strangers myself. Helen: Then you shant, Rachel! Well all go together, and you shall see how the new life suits you. (T3: 858-9) The confrontation stage is initiated by violating Helens negative face through making a request. The request (which involves Rachels want to go with her lady) is indirectly made by Rachels asserting that she has no home but with her lady, and if the lady leaves her, then Rachel will go nowhere as long as she lives.

144 In the subsequent argumentation stage, Rachel argues effectively and appropriately. The effective arguing manifests itself in her keeping to the CP and its four maxims; therefore, she is informative ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim), truthful (which is assured by her using the qualifier surely), relevant (she has kept to the main point of the topic), and clear, brief, and orderly ( See the example itself for information supporting this maxim). The appropriate arguing is proved in her keeping to the PP which is employed via: a- The use of the questions what signifies; do you think (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.a). b- The use of the tag question wont you(Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.c). c- The use of the conditional clause if you wouldnt (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.d). d- The use of the past tense you wouldnt take (Cf. 2.4.2.2.1.1.b); and The concluding stage is positive because it is terminated in agreement. The agreement is explicitly expressed by Helens telling Rachel that they will all go together, meaning that Helen has been convinced by what Rachel has said, and thus she agrees with her. The analysis of the remaining situations will be presented in the following table, as denoted before (See 3.2.2 above). For the examples themselves, see Appendix (1); and for a brief description of their contextual factors, see Table (1) above.

145

Table (2) Analysis of the Remaining Situations

Situation No.

COS Effective arguing

SAS Appropriate arguing Combination of both /

CS

Accusation

Psychological disengagement

Statement of an unacceptable thought

Disagreement

Criticism

Psychological disengagement

7 12 13 17 21 24 27

Accusation Accusation Criticism Accusation Request Advice Blame

/ / / / / / /

Agreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Agreement Psychological disengagement

29

Accusation

Agreement

146
31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 44 46 47 48 Proposal Blame Remonstrance Request Accusation Accusation Accusation Request Accusation Accusation Request Suggestion Criticism

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

Disagreement Disagreement Disagreement Physical disengagement Apology Apology Agreement Disagreement Agreement Agreement Apology Agreement Combination of apology and agreement

Key: COS= confrontation stage, SAS= subsequent argumentation stage, CS= concluding stage.

147

3.2.2.1 Argumentation and Some of the Major Themes in the Three Novels
After fulfilling the first three aims, and testing the first three hypotheses in this study; there remain the fifth aim and the fourth hypothesis that need to be fulfilled and tested respectively. This can be achieved by examining the relationship between argumentation and some major themes in the three novels under analysis. As regards the first novel, Jane Eyre, the theme of social position (Cited in web source 1 ) is reflected in argumentation. More precisely, the social relationship between the arguers are reflected in the strategies employed to show politeness. For example, in the argumentation between Bessie and Jane (Situation 1), and between Rochester and Jane (Situation 5), the use of the titles Miss and Sir respectively shows deference; whereas in the argumentation between Jane and Helen (Situation 2), and between St. John and Jane (Situation 8), the use of the first names Helen and Jane respectively is employed to show rapport and equality. This means that argumentation (and more accurately, the subsequent argumentation stage) in this novel has a strong relationship with this theme. As far as Wuthering Heights is concerned, two interrelated major themes are reflected in argumentation: revenge, and violence and cruelty (Cited in web source 2). These themes are clearly represented by the situations in which the appropriate arguing is not appealed to (i.e. Situations 9,14,15,20, and 22); rather, quarrel is resorted to when arguing with others. Besides, the high percentage of quarrel in the concluding stage (that is, 21.428) manifests these two themes. It must be mentioned that this percentage is considered high in comparison with the

148 percentages of the other strategies of getting out of argumentation (except for disagreement), in that each has (7.142). This means that argumentation (and more accurately, the concluding stage) in this novel has a strong relationship with these themes. As for the third novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, it is the theme of social class (Cited in web source 3) that is reflected in argumentation. As with Jane Eyre, the strategies employed to show politeness demonstrate this theme more clearly that is, it is reflected in the social relationship between arguers. For instance, when Mrs. Graham (the heroine) and Mr. Markham (the hero) are still neighbours (Situation 24), the use of the titles Mrs. And Mr. respectively are employed to show deference; whereas when, later on, they become close friends, the use of the first names Helen and Gilbert is employed to show rapport and equality. This means that argumentation (and more accurately, the subsequent argumentation stage) in this novel has a strong relationship with this theme. These findings fulfill the fifth aim of this study (i.e. showing whether some of the major themes in the selected novels are reflected in argumentation or not); and verify the fourth hypothesis which reads as (some of the major themes in the three novels under study are reflected in argumentation).

149

3.2.3 Mathematical Statistical Analysis

The aim of this sub-section is to verify, in a mathematical statistical method, the findings which accord with the aims and hypotheses of this study. It presents the results arrived at by applying the percentage equation in the three novels under investigation. These results are introduced in tables and figures. The tables show each strategy, in the three stages of the process of argumentation in the three novels, calculated in percentage. The figures, on the other hand, demonstrate the different rates of percentages of each of those strategies (in the three stages) in the selected novels. For the application of the percentage equation to the situations in the three novels, see Appendix (3). 3.2.3.1 Mathematical Statistical Results in Jane Eyre Table (3) and Figure (6) below show the following results in this novel: 1- In the confrontation stage, accusation has the highest percentage (that is, 50%) among all the other strategies; and accordingly, it has the highest rate among others. Thus, the first hypothesis in this study is verified (See p. 97). 2- In the subsequent argumentation stage, the combination of both effective and appropriate arguing has the highest percentage (that is, 87.5%) than each of arguing effectively or arguing appropriately alone; as such, it has the highest rate. Accordingly, one can say that the second hypothesis in the study is verified as well (See p. 94). 3- In the concluding stage, two strategies have the highest percentage (that is, 37.5% for each): psychological disengagement and disagreement; and thus, they have the highest rate among all the other strategies. Consequently, the third hypothesis in this study is partially rejected and partially verified (See pp. 95, 98).

150 Table is here ramram

151 figure is here ramram

152 3.2.3.2 Mathematical Statistical Results in Wuthering Heights Table (4) and Figure (7) below manifest the following results in this novel: 1- In the confrontation stage, accusation has the highest percentage (that is, 64.285%) among all the other strategies; accordingly, it has the highest rate among others. It can be said, then, that the first hypothesis in the study is verified (See p. 106). 2- In the subsequent argumentation stage, the combination of both effective and appropriate arguing has the highest percentage (that is, 71.428%) than each of arguing effectively or arguing appropriately alone; as such, it has the highest rate. So, it can be concluded that the second hypothesis in this study is verified also (See p. 105). 3- In the concluding stage, disagreement has the highest percentage (that is, 50%); so, it has the highest rate among all the other strategies. As a result, the third hypothesis in the study is verified (See p. 105).

153 Table

154 figure

155 3.2.3.3 Mathematical Statistical Results in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall Table (5) and Figure (8) below demonstrate the following results in this novel: 1- In the confrontation stage, accusation has the highest percentage (that is, 46.153%) among all the other strategies; accordingly, it has the highest rate among others. So, the first hypothesis in this study is verified (See p. 134). 2- In the subsequent argumentation stage, the combination of both effective and appropriate arguing has the ever highest percentage (that is, 100%); as such, it has a full rate. Thus, the second hypothesis in the study is verified (See p. 122). 3- In the concluding stage, agreement has the highest percentage (that is, 38.461%); so, it has the highest rate among all the other strategies. This result totally rejects the third hypothesis in this study (See p. 125).

156

157