Jane Austen's Narrative Techniques

Jane Austen’sNarrative Techniques A Stylistic and Pragmatic Analysis Massimiliano Morini Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques For Valentina Poggi, who is about to begin her career as a full-time translator Italy .Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques A Stylistic and Pragmatic Analysis Massimiliano Morini University of Udine. ISBN 978-0-7546-6607-3 (alk. recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. to be identified as the author of this work. Narration (Rhetoric)—History—19th century. No part of this publication may be reproduced. Jane Austen’s narrative techniques: a stylistic and pragmatic analysis / by Massimiliano Morini.7 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Morini. 1775–1817— Technique. 1988. Austen.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Morini. I. 1775–1817—Criticism and interpretation.) and index. 3. GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA www. Austen. stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. Massimiliano.V) 2008042593 . 5. Title 823. Women and literature— England—History—19th century. Massimiliano Jane Austen’s narrative techniques: a stylistic and pragmatic analysis 1.© Massimiliano Morini 2009 All rights reserved. Jane. 2. Narration (Rhetoric) I. mechanical. PR4037. Includes bibliographical references (p.M67 2009 823’. Austen. 4. Designs and Patents Act. Title. Jane. photocopying. 1775–1817 – Literary style 2. paper) 1. Fiction—Technique. Massimiliano Morini has asserted his moral right under the Copyright.7—dc22 ISBN: 978-0-7546-6607-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-7546-9313-0 (ebk. p. Jane.ashgate. cm. electronic. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey. Contents Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Introduction Part 1 vi vii 1 Narrative 1 Jane Austen’s Narrators 15 2 The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 37 3 Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 61 Part 2 Dialogue 4 Jane Austen’s Dialogue 79 5 Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 97 6 Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 129 Conclusion 145 Bibliography Index 149 161 . the leading Austen scholar in Italy. as always. who encouraged me to pursue the study of stylistics. who fifteen years ago set me wandering down the paths of Highbury. Chapters 1 and 6. and to John Douthwaite. and to Paola Venturi. 16:1. to Fabio Cimatti. I would like to extend my thanks to the editorial staffs of these journals.vi Book Title Acknowledgements This book owes its existence to Beatrice Battaglia. for agreeing to lend me the talent he keeps hidden from the world. I would also like to thank Francesco. 2007). My thanks are also due. 41:3. while Chapter 3 (‘Tracking Jane Austen’s Narrator: Sense and Significance of Mansfield Park’) has appeared on Il bianco e il nero. for not caring about Jane Austen or anything I write about. which gave me a forum for my ideas and the opportunity to correct or clarify them. Mean What You Say: A Pragmatic Analysis of the Italian Translations of Emma’. in slightly or (respectively) very different guises. and collectively. . for being too short as yet to damage my Austen files and typescripts beyond repair. Giovanni. Bianca and Francesco. 2007) and Language and Literature (‘Say What You Mean. have already been published in Style (‘Who Evaluates Whom and What in Jane Austen’s Novels?’. for their longstanding advice and support. because I would never dream of publishing anything before submitting it to her quick eye and sound judgement. to Valentina Poggi and Romana Zacchi. Chapter Title List of Abbreviations E Emma LS Lady Susan MP Mansfield Park NA Northanger Abbey P Persuasion P&P Pride and Prejudice S Sanditon S&S Sense and Sensibility TW The Watsons vii . This page has been left blank intentionally . At that time. my embarrassment started to abate as my linguistic studies progressed and defined themselves in the general context of Austen criticism. When those studies accumulated and started to form an abstract but substantial heap on my computer desktop. On the face of it. stylistics. but some new critical ideas have become modern Austen commonplaces which will not pass the test of close linguistic scrutiny. the prospect of turning that heap into a consistent whole still seemed daunting. As I hope to demonstrate in what follows. a preliminary historical survey is needed. However. Jane Austen and postcolonial theory). Therefore. and evaluation theory provide an appropriate analytical framework for the writings of a theoretically reticent craftsman of the English language who has been construed to ‘say’ or ‘mean’ radically different. the sort of book-length study that I was planning would provide a means to gauge existing critical readings of Austen’s novels against the actual linguistic materials with which those novels are built. harmless. pragmatics. This version originated in Austen’s . Through its linguistically-minded analysis. along with other similar anachronisms: Jane Austen and feminism. but if the conceptual anachronism is forgotten (or forgiven. some of these versions are now outdated. the present study expresses an implicit and explicit dissatisfaction with some historical and contemporary versions of Jane Austen. I embarked on a number of linguistic studies of Austen’s novels. a book which combines ‘linguistics’ and ‘Jane Austen’ may appear to create a very strange pair of bedfellows. An intimidating mass of analytical. Admittedly. and have been replaced by new ones. my only idea for a title was a self-defeating one: Another Book on Jane Austen – and it is a measure of the difficulty of the enterprise that I did not even know if the idea was mine. unconscious miniaturist whose works never touched upon the innermost feelings of man or the greater destinies of mankind. the basic methodological idea behind Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques acquires the cogency of obviousness. it soon became evident that besides bridging a critical gap. and reference material made any attempt at writing ‘another book on Jane Austen’ appear doomed – David defying Goliath without as much as a sling up his critical sleeve. in order to understand the aims of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques. In this context. biographical.Introduction Another Book on Jane Austen Five years ago. compelled by what I saw as a small critical lacuna. if not ludicrous. or if I had heard of the title somewhere else. often opposing ‘things’. A Brief Summary of Austen Criticism The earliest critical version of Jane Austen saw her as a provincial. ‘Three around Farnham’. and F. it gave birth to a whole ‘subversive school’ of critics who see Austen as deliberately. while the recognition of Austen as a major and ‘serious’ author dates at least from the 1910s (Reginald Farrer’s 1917 essay springs to mind). In this critical tradition. Though Harding’s reading was intentionally provocative. in works of fiction’ (Southam 1968: 70). Three critical books of very different descriptions contributed to dismantle the foundations of the legend: Raymond Williams’ The Country and the City (1973). if not critical. and were shown in ‘the extraordinary grace of her facility’ (Southam 1987: 230). and her novels in general. and still has some popular. currency. In his famous essay on ‘Regulated Hatred: An Aspect of the Work of Jane Austen’ (1940). it was in the 1970s that ‘aunt Jane’s’ harmless aura was definitively dispelled. to quote Henry James’s faint and damning praise. ‘lop-sided’ (Harding 1940/1998: 25). it was commonly noted that the novels bore no trace of the innumerable social and political upheavals of their age (Walter Scott wrote in 1815 that ‘The subjects are not often elegant. From the technical point of view. though covertly. more recent criticism has found a place for Austen in the greater tradition of European literature (cf. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques lifetime. and Gilbert and Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic (1979). an anonymous reviewer wrote that it would ‘probably become a favourite with all those who seek for harmless amusement. Roger Gard’s comparison of Austen with Flaubert. Williams pointed out that ‘history has many currents. and the portrait of the artist as an agreeable spinster. Williams refuted the critical commonplace which sees Austen as a gifted but limited novelist of ‘manners’. and the social history of the landed families. were put together very “deliberately and calculatedly” (if not “like a building”)’ (Leavis 1948/1964: 7). While the immortalizing effect of . rather than deep pathos or appalling horrors. was among the most important. However. When the compliment became an accusation. and certainly never grand’. was reinforced by the biographical accounts penned by members of Austen’s family circle. D. The legend of Austen as ‘dear aunt Jane’ has been attacked from several quarters. If Q. challenging the values of her society. we find that they are quite central and structural in Jane Austen’s novels’ (Williams 1973: 113).R. In Chapter 11 of The Country and the City. As we sense its real processes. these had been acquired unconsciously. Marilyn Butler’s Jane Austen and the War of Ideas (1975). The double-edged compliment of ‘harmless amusement’ was replicated in countless critical notices and essays. at that time in England. Leavis were already persuaded that ‘Jane Austen’s plots. the author’s survival strategy in a disagreeable world.W.D. Gard 1992: 144–54). When E was published in 1816. Southam 1968: 67). whose works display no connections with the powerful currents of history. harmless herself. Harding first identified a satirical vein which was ‘obviously a means not of admonition but of self-preservation’ (Harding 1940/1998: 12). if Jane Austen was allowed to possess great creative arts. in its thematic and technical implications. it has become increasingly apparent that the narratological complexity of Austen’s works cannot be accounted for in terms of novelistic instinct or artistic unconsciousness. According to Butler. E. as social beings in an epoch of social upheavals and change (pages 113–15 of Williams’ essay amount to a catalogue of socially mobile characters in Austen’s fiction). self-indulgence. Williams 1973: 117). the great number of inaccessible roles). Jane Austen was seen not as a precise but neutral beholder of social ties and contracts. also Tony Tanner. were openly conservative. conceit. Jane Austen’s characters are portrayed. the vices are romanticism. was used as a metaphor for an undercover style that criticizes the conventions it professes to sanction. glad that a hinge creaked to warn her that somebody was about to come in. Four years later. Though he also highlighted the social near-sightedness of Austen’s vision (she only wrote about the gentry.Introduction  fiction can create the impression that the world depicted in P&P. for Jane Austen. Williams was the first serious critic to define the historical relevance of her novels: far from being ‘harmless amusement’. while Williams confined himself  Cf. but as a politically conscious author whose works faithfully reproduced her ideology. The two chapters dedicated to Jane Austen. Marylin Butler’s Jane Austen and the War of Ideas was a further investigation into the social and philosophical roots of Austen’s writings. and ‘where only one class is seen. Austen used ‘explicitly decorous’ forms to make her ‘implicitly rebellious vision’ acceptable (Gilbert and Gubar 1979/1984: 153). in The Madwoman in the Attic. were a feminist version of Harding’s essay on ‘Regulated Hatred’. the compulsory nature of marriage. Butler described her as a political writer whose works straightforwardly conveyed her views on the current state of affairs. no classes are seen’. Austen’s novels were conceived as educational projects in which ‘The key virtues are prudence and concern for the evidence. as expressed in her works. if only one reads between the lines of their amorous plots. According to Gilbert and Gubar. . in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. the intellectual field of England was divided between the opposing camps of the Jacobins and the anti-Jacobins: and Austen’s sympathies. Here. Gilbert and Susan Gubar painted a very different picture of Austen’s ideology as reflected in her writings. In particular. and deplored that confinement at the same time that they showed its inevitability. Taking a step forward from Williams’ image of Austen as a ‘social’ author. constituted as many attempts at liberating the author from the ivory tower of ‘pure’ or ‘ahistorical’ art – and made it virtually impossible to study Austen’s writings without a reference to her social milieu. and MP is a relatively stable one. her novels explored ‘female confinement’ in all its articulations (physical confinement. when he groups MP with the ‘great novels [which] concern themselves with characters whose place in society is not fixed or assured’ (Tanner 1968: 136). they were seen as representing a transitional period in the life of one of England’s most important social classes. other subtle variations upon the broad anti-jacobin target of individualism’ (Butler 1975: 122). however distant from one another. and. and even its propriety. However. Sandra M. The famous image of Austen hiding her manuscript if anyone outside her family circle knocked on the sitting-room door. These three versions of Jane Austen. with an effort to draw out. We must therefore read the great canonical texts. By contrast.. Duckworth has contended. that though there are occasions ‘where .. patriarchal or feminist. it remained to be seen and debated. and perhaps also the entire archive of modern and pre-modern European and American culture. This position has been immensely influential. this is a long way from saying that individual action of a subversive or antisocial nature is sanctioned. Margaret Kirkham has studied Austen in the context of ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘rational feminism’ – a middle position between Wollstonecraft’s radicalism and evangelical defeatism (Kirkham 1983/1997). ‘feminist Austen’ is such a multifaceted figure that it would be better to speak.. Deborah Kaplan has convincingly portrayed an author whose divided allegiances to ‘the gentry’s culture’ and ‘the women’s culture’ informed the ‘muted subversiveness’ of the novels (Kaplan 1992: 13).. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques to an observation of the social facts which are described or taken for granted in the novels. Johnson and Alison G. many of which have been invaluable in detailing Austen’s indebtedness to female predecessors. We know now that these non-European peoples did not accept with indifference the authority projected over them. a ‘postcolonial Jane Austen’ has made its appearance. other scholars have situated her novels in the wider contexts of the British nation. of various feminist traditions in Austen criticism (Looser 1995: 1–6). the sharpness of her purposes. that of Fanny Price in Mansfield Park. Gilbert and Gubar preferred to see the novels themselves as indirect manifestos issued by an ideologically embattled writer. individualism is admirable . More recently. it is precisely the resistance of the heroine to those forces endangering her world which permits the continuity of an integral society’ (Duckworth 1994: 6). Mary Evans has read Austen’s novels as ‘a radical critique of the morality of bourgeois capitalism’ (Evans 1987: backcover). and the following decades have seen a flowering of political and ideological versions of Jane Austen. Claudia L. Sulloway 1989). Indeed. against the whole ‘subversive tradition’.. While feminist criticism has obviously concentrated on woman’s role in society as depicted in Austen. in particular. or the general silence on which their presence in variously attenuated forms is predicated. has produced a great quantity of studies of varying quality and inspiration. in Jane Austen’s novels .. extend. as Devoney Looser has done. her adherence to or rejection of contemporary ideas of womanhood. and her awareness of the critical wars of her time. give emphasis and voice to what is silent or marginally present or ideologically represented . in such works. in one instance. Jane Austen was a political writer – whether reactionary or subversive. Mary Poovey. The indirectness of her methods demonstrated.. Feminist criticism.M. or the world at large. (Said 1993: 66) . Butler. Indeed.. Johnson 1988. Western civilization. For these critics. even unconsciously. Sulloway have studied Austen’s images of femininity in the cultural and polemical contexts of her time (Poovey 1984. A. following a cultural/ ideological proposal formulated by Edward Said in Culture and Imperialism: But just because Austen referred to Antigua in Mansfield Park or to realms visited by the British navy in Persuasion without any thought of possible responses by the Caribbean or Indian natives resident there is no reason why we should do the same. if anything. and aims at linguistically vindicating Gard’s idea that Austen’s methods antedate Flaubert’s. Above all she has shown very clearly how much Miss Austen owed to the highly moral. Part 1 details a process of artistic development (involving a constant increase in narratological complexity) that cannot but be accompanied by a corresponding growth in critical ‘consciousness. Mary Waldron has written that ‘One of the most popular games that people play with Jane Austen’s fiction is to try to determine from it whether she was committed to the mores of the society in which she lived or. Postcolonial criticism concentrates on MP (the Antigua plantation). However. So substantial is the evidence for their influence that Dr Butler becomes convinced that Jane Austen must have had a like didactic programme in her major novels. This book accepts the insights of Williams. Finally. dating at least from Butler’s study. and she proceeds to discover it. conservative. Park and Sunder Rajan 2000). with the theatrical episode of Lovers’ Vows eliciting the same contrasting interpretations that the novel and Austen’s whole career have stimulated. the epistolary advice given to her niece Anna). and the 1970s have made it impossible to think of Austen’s novels as untouched by the bigger or smaller waves of history. ‘anti-jacobine’ novels. and Gilbert and Gubar’s  In his somewhat ingenuous but occasionally insightful study of Jane Austen. Purpose and Scope of the Book Though this study expresses a discomfort with the image of Austen as an ideologically embattled writer. Christopher Brooke formulates a judgment on Butler’s study which can be extended to many other critical works: ‘I believe I have learned more of Jane Austen’s inspiration from Marilyn Butler’s Jane Austen and the War of Ideas than from any other book about her written in the last thirty years. on the other hand. some references in her correspondence. Butler’s conclusions on the one hand. So consistently does Marilyn Butler make her falter that our suspicions are aroused: no small part of Dr Butler’s contribution to our understanding lies in the failure of this part of her scheme’ (Brooke 1999: 19). Butler. and the unfinished S (the ‘west Indian’ schoolgirl. while the critics who see an educational project as being crucial to Austen’s concerns take S&S as their starting point. More generally. while the destructive activity of both the subversive and the reactionary schools is taken as a starting point. Those who argue for the centrality of the satirical vein focus on the open parody of NA. deeply critical of them. P (the navy). didactic. But a difficulty arises: for all the subtlety and power of Jane’s technique as a novelist. Henry James’s accusation of ‘unconsciousness’ is implicitly refuted. MP has been the main battleground of the war between the subversive and the reactionary schools.Introduction  It is interesting. Even in the scarcity of textual evidence for Jane Austen’s artistic awareness (a brief passage in NA. it does not aim at reinstating a de-historicized. socially and intellectually harmless reading. cf. though perhaps not surprising.’ Feminist criticism has effectively exposed the male-chauvinistic foundations of the aunt Jane legend. their constructive proposals are in part rejected. she seems to falter in adapting her teaching and her stories. and others as given. that all of these warring factions have their favourite novels in the Austen canon. . it plays its own games with the norms of behaviour which are current at the time of writing’ (Waldron 2004: 427). ‘embody ideals’. In Emma. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques on the other – with their three decades of filiations – are based on the common assumption that Austen expresses an opinion on the key issues of her society through her novels. However. find in her what most interests themselves. ‘suggest’. (Hudson 1995: 101) The striking fact that Austen’s oeuvre has attracted (and. or ‘reflect an ideology’) makes it clear that many commentators have become used to treating Austen’s works as pamphlets rather than fictional works.  Beatrice Battaglia has written that ‘the enormous bulk of critical studies and the vitality of the debate on Jane Austen should make it an objective fact that she is the most ambiguous and controversial author in the whole tradition of English literature [Che Jane Austen sia la scrittrice più ambigua e controversa della letteratura inglese dovrebbe essere un fatto oggettivo confermato dall’enorme produzione critica e dalla persistente attualità del dibattito aperto sulla sua narrativa]’ (Battaglia1983: 7). Mr. who throughout much of the novel shares a fraternal relationship with her. biased manifestos. moreover. stimulated. an intellectual absoluteness which they would also find in George Eliot or Henry James’ (Bayley 1968: 4). Fanny and Edmund are first cousins. Colonel Brandon tells Elinor the story of his desire to marry Eliza Williams. if opposing analyses can be presented in similarly convincing ways. And in the same novel. ‘examinations’. Perhaps. . without assimilating her fiction to any particular line of thought. she challenges the traditional dynamics of power and system of values in male/female relations. With these in-family marriages.  John Bayley wrote as early as 1968 that ‘[Austen’s] critics. In Mansfield Park. they are ‘analyses’. Instead of creating marriages in which power is associated with sex. The terminology used by both ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ critics (the novels ‘challenge’. but having found it they assume in it a hard ‘unplastic’ significance. they ‘serve a purpose’. a sister-in-law brought up as his sister. In Sense and Sensibility. indeed. Such relationships serve a singular purpose in Austen’s work. the novels had better be read as complex acts of ideological balancing rather than as unbalanced. Edward Ferrars. Knightley. Elinor. both are unsatisfactory and always open to challenge. Both conclusions have been reached. This is particularly obvious in certain feminist readings: Three of Jane Austen’s novels end with marriages that have incestuous overtones. scientific (Graham 2008) and literary (Mandal 2007) climate of her time. in recent years a number of studies have appeared which – very much in the manner of Raymond Williams – situate Austen in the philosophical (Knox-Shaw 2004). like Emma. This is because fiction – that is. ‘critiques’. they have been brought up as brother and sister in the same household. These unions profoundly alter the balance of power between men and women in her novels. ‘subvert’. the kind that goes on engaging the interest of readers long after the writers are dead – is always uncommitted. as pointed out in chapter 1) such a diversity of ideological readings should alert us to the dangers inherent in this kind of interpretation. the heroine marries her brother-in-law. like those of Shakespeare. Austen offers siblinglike unions that highlight moral and spiritual values. marries her brother-in-law. A pamphlet-like reading of the novels presupposes a ‘Jane Austen’ looming from behind the veil of narration. D. Rather. In the present study. Miller (2003) speaks of a narrator paring his/her fingernails far from the events of MP or E – but this impression clashes with the narrator’s authoritative interventions. As we shall see. these critics have noted that the novels are characterized by a conflict between closure and a ‘narrative dynamic . but this subversion is not just to be situated in a barely audible subtext.. Austen’s works are viewed as dialogic machines – in the Bakhtinian sense – not because all novels are dialogic (though that can safely be argued).A.Introduction  Such a reading has been provided by a number of post-structuralist critics who have applied themselves to studying Jane Austen. Austen is subversive. But if ‘the texts’ do not distinguish between text and subtext. that ‘Jane Austen’s use of narrative voice exposes the context of “truth” as a tissue of indeterminacy’ (Patteson 1981: 465). Miller has recently written. without anthropomorphism. when the moral has to be pointed or the tale adorned. that the order of authoritative narrative is undermined ‘by suggesting that it is an arbitrary system of mere writing’ (Holly 1989: 47). Austen manages to subtract her signature from her creations: she ‘writes like a real god. been more completely denied’ (Miller 2003: 32). but there is – as Patteson notes – a multiplicity of ‘point of view’. Nowhere else in nineteenth-century English narration have the claims of the “person. which can never be accommodated in a final settlement’ (Miller 1981: xii).. the texts themselves do not take this authoritarian stance’ (Seeber 2000: 8). in this case. but as D. there is no ‘multiplicity of narrative voice’.” its ideology. Seeber also proposes a dialogic. The poststructuralist critical line opposes all ‘subversive’ and ‘reactionary’ interpretations by pointing out that no single authoritative voice is set up in the novels that can subvert an existing system or react against modern values. to designate parts of the novels as subtexts is to read Austen’s novels monologically. is not a product of the narrator’s invisibility. and tries to extend those conclusions by looking at the technical means by which Austen’s ‘indeterminacy’ is created.A. but she manages to combine this with the ‘subversive’ reading. Richard F. why should we? . Patteson is perhaps closer to home when he speaks of the ‘multiplicity of narrative voice’ making ‘the reader’s search for determinacy even more difficult than the characters’’ (Patteson 1981: 465). To analyze the workings of a  Barbara K. but because these novels in particular are constructed as dialogues among voices whose struggle for power can never be finally decided (which is why opposing readings are possible and plausible). Bakhtinian interpretation of Jane Austen. it is in the interplay between main text and subtext that the subversive effect lies. as our modernist prejudices would have us believe. Its first discovery is that indeterminacy. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques agrees with the general conclusions of post-structuralist criticism. but he/she relinquishes his/her dominant position by renouncing his/her authoritativeness or conferring it on others. The effects are somewhat contradictory: ‘I want to present a reading of Jane Austen that overcomes this theoretical dilemma. In my account. The narrator is only one of many sources of authorititativess: he/she is automatically perceived by the reader as being more authoritative than the characters. Against the tendency to constrict the author into a fixed ideological frame. all interpretations end up possessing very similar degrees of authority – an uncertainty which is mirrored in the diversity of critical interpretations. 173). for instance. Chapter 3 is dedicated to a close reading of the incipit of MP. re-interprets the traditional distinction between the Steventon and the Chawton novels as a rise in the level of opacity). however. That this meaning remains indeterminate. which demonstrates that evaluative opacity does not coincide with the absence of evaluation. As Graham Hough showed in his famous essay of 1970. and characters and narrators) are shown through which meaning is negotiated in a fictional world divested of a single central authority. there are no better tools than the tools of linguistics: evaluation theory is used to understand which voices evaluate which events and characters. Austen’s narrators are shown to give up their natural position of authority by conferring it on others and undermining their own credibility. are used to understand the novels as records and . Strong evaluations are provided. evaluation theory and stylistics are used in order to understand ‘who evaluates whom’ in the novels. by the narrators and other characters. but the reader’s belief in the existence of one or more authoritative evaluators is consistently dismantled (stylistics provides the tools and the terminology to observe the various ways in which evaluative authority is eroded. with the inevitable circularity of human sciences. Evaluation theory provides a general theoretical framework which re-articulates Patteson’s indeterminacy of meaning as evaluative opacity. Chapter 2 traces the development of ‘evaluative opacity’ in the course of Austen’s career as a novelist (and in so doing. Parts and Chapters Parts 1 and 2 of this study are assigned respectively to Austen’s narrators and characters. or to narrative technique and dialogue. stylistics is used to observe the ways in which Austen’s narrators renounce their evaluative power. together with the conversation manuals of Austen’s time. In Part 1. is what Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques sets out to demonstrate. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques dialogic machine. the distinction is even more artificial in Austen’s novels than elsewhere: in E. pragmatics and conversation analysis. even after close study. the ‘division of labour is by no means clear. or erodes itself). Chapter 1 unfolds this theory in its general lines. but that Austen has created fictional vehicles for semantic indeterminacy – which. in Part 2. does not mean that the study has been in vain. Artificial and a posteriori though it may be.’ and most of the tale is told in ‘coloured narrative’ or ‘free indirect style’ (Hough 1970/1991: 172. the interpersonal relationships (among characters. while pragmatics and conversation analysis provide the terminology and the theoretical framework for a close study of how narrators and characters interact and produce meaning in and through their interaction. a neat division of labour is useful for the analyst who wants to show the mechanics of a single complex action by splitting it into two synchronic events: in Part 1. In Part 2. and how. In the absence of a strong evaluative centre. such an exact correspondence is rare if not impossible. however. however. an enumeration is appropriate of all the precedents which made one’s work possible and enabled one to skip peripheral concerns (which others busied themselves with) in order to get to the heart of the matter. Chapter 5 diachronically analyzes the changes in characterization from one novel to another. This favouritism has less to do with aesthetic than with practical considerations: MP and E are Austen’s most complex novels. the fools. indeed. Even within the main corpus. with some occasional forays into LS. S&S and P&P become the mixed psychological types of MP.Introduction  products of interpersonal negotiation. and once again observes a divide between the Steventon and the Chawton periods (the caricatures of NA. Before detailing one’s vision. Burrows’ Computation into Criticism. one’s worst nightmare is finding out that one’s project has already been realized by someone else. winners and losers cannot be proclaimed with any final certainty. Finally. The only book-length study so far was J. Short of the discovery of a nightmarish double. both of which have a monographic chapter. a preference is silently assigned to MP and E. and according to which a number of types or categories can be identified (the boors. Conversation and characterization are closely allied in Austen’s novels. therefore. and as such they yield the greatest number of (contradictory) facts to critical scrutiny. TW and S. Fortunately. at least if the inception of the project is one’s feeling that one’s insight will add a little something to the sum of general knowledge.). various degrees of analytical overlap are inevitable and. in the mist of evaluative opacity. they must judge everybody on the basis of internal (the narrator’s view. These three works/fragments are included for the light they shed on the major works. All the six novels in the main Austen corpus are analyzed in both parts. for if readers cannot rely on an authoritative narrator unquestionably identifying the moral and social nature of characters.  A recent book on Twentieth-Century Drama Dialogue as Ordinary Talk (Mandala 2007) has done much to reinforce my conviction that such analyses are justified and productive. As said above. the other characters’ opinions) and external evidence (the readers’ own social-conversational prejudices). Critical Debts and Predecessors When one is researching a subject with a view to writing a book-length study.F. Chapter 4 defines a set of social-conversational rules which can be held to be (laxly) valid for Austen’s time and Austen’s fiction. very few linguists have devoted themselves to Jane Austen. other fragments or juvenilia fall outside the scope of this study. Chapter 6 analyses a single complex social occasion in E (the Box Hill episode) as a ‘conversational tennis match’ which sees the contestants striving for social power and gaining or losing ‘status’ with their every move – though once again. and no attempt is made at studying them in any detail. E and P). desirable. etc. . results (one example: ‘Save for the special case of Mrs Gardiner . . Jane Austen’s language has mainly attracted the attention of literary critics rather than linguists. DeForest and Johnson measure the density of latinate words in the speeches of Austen’s characters. Stokes’s volume provides a social and etymological reading of a number of significant terms (‘understanding’. Their voices blend with the narrators’. though somewhat predictable. after three or four decades. Part 1 of this study owes its existence to all previous stylistic/narratological analyses of Jane Austen. My debt to Wayne Booth’s 1961 The Rhetoric of Fiction is acknowledged in Chapter 1. Rand Schmidt attempts a comparison between male and female language in the novels. and mood’ (DeForest and Johnson 2001: 390): in particular. and make interesting discoveries along the axes of ‘class. but for opposing reasons). Page (1972) and Tave (1973) are impressionistic studies which. Burrows 1987: 6). ‘sense’... Collins is the most isolated of the major characters of Pride and Prejudice with only three correlations higher than 0. Shorter computational studies include Rand Schmidt (1981) and DeForest and Johnson (2001). The distribution of certain keywords mirrors Austen’s social and ethical vision. more generally. which is less impressionistic but more limited in scope: rather than studying Austen’s language as it purports to do. education. and notes that ‘the language of the female characters is subject to norms to a much greater extent than that of the male characters’ (Rand Schmidt 1981: 209). and character is revealed by conversational style (much in the manner of Chapters 4 and 5 here): but many a perceptive survey is marred by the conflation of author with narrator. ‘sensibility’. must be read with a degree of critical detachment. when I describe the process whereby Austen’s narrators turn themselves  A recent addition to the number of studies concentrating on Jane Austen’s words is a short but brilliant essay on ‘Three Words of Jane Austen: Courtesy. The main merit of the book is that it demonstrates the trustworthiness of computational methods in the study of Austen. Phillips (1970). Burrows’ statistics on personal pronouns (Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Fanny Price say ‘we’ very rarely. and we unconsciously give them the authority of the actual storyteller’ [De Forest and Johnson 2001: 398]). and. or on the distribution of a 30-word matrix in the conversational styles of a number of characters. as well as to the post-structuralist studies quoted above. ‘disposition’. gender. ‘accomplishments’.770’. A more recent monograph on ‘the language of Jane Austen’ is Stokes (1991). These essays aside.10 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques which applies computational linguistics to an analysis of the novels. by the unsystematic character of the analytical methods. very similar densities reveal the linguistic alignment between Austen’s narrators and their heroines (‘It is no coincidence that Austen’s four great heroines are all within two percentage points of their narrators. and therefore paves the way for other – and perhaps less mechanical – linguistic applications. mind. produce interesting. ‘prudence’) which are used as keys to unlock the social contexts portrayed in the novels. Civility and Gallantry’ (Wiesenfarth 2004). though many critics have busied themselves with matters which touch its concerns tangentially. Graham Hough’s classic article on ‘Narrative and Dialogue in Jane Austen’. Davidson 2004: 146–69). In the preface to his Jane Austen and the Morality of Conversation (2003). Fritzer (1997) observes in exhaustive but somewhat superficial fashion the connections between Austen’s fiction and the courtesy books of her time. Austin and Grice’ (Tandon 2003: xiv).Introduction 11 into characters. his conclusions are of a pair with Hough’s (‘contamination’ is held to be the rule of Austen’s narrative technique). Finally. A number of essays and monographs on British conversational culture and on the idea of the gentleman in British society allowed me to treat these currents as a sea. with its definition of ‘coloured narrative’.and nineteenth-century concern ‘with conversation as a socially cohesive activity. is a precedent for my own observation of how Austen’s narrators are conflated with one or more (mimetic or non-mimetic) reflectors. as a conflict between ‘sincerity’ and ‘hypocrisy’ (she presents Fanny Price as a case of insincerity caused by extreme dependence. a recent work must be mentioned which starts out from much the same assumptions as Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques. in particular). I found another essay which comes to the same conclusions by a slightly different linguistic route (Blake 1988). Jenny Davidson looks at the same strife in different terms. Berger (1991) and Appleton (1992) see this strife as embodied in Austen’s characters (Frank Churchill vs. Finally. Chapter 4. Marylea Meyersohn has studied Austen’s ‘garrulous speakers’ (1990). Among the ‘tangential’ precedents. has led [him] to works on rhetoric and polite conduct’. Among the predecessors. and describes a secular strife between social and conversational models (aristocratic vs. that account is never actually given. Bharat Tandon writes that the eighteenth. Another important narratological study which dedicates a chapter to Jane Austen is Roy Pascal’s The Dual Voice (1977): while Pascal prefers to speak of ‘free indirect speech’ rather than ‘coloured narrative’.. Page and Tave. treats the latter as a rather unproblematic datum – while as Williams would say. though its analytical method is strikingly different from the ones employed here. bourgeois) which is subterranean in Austen and comes to light in the Victorian novel (Gilmour 1981). i. classic studies of Austen’s dialogue like Babb (1962) and Kroeber (1971) can be mentioned. in its outline of the relationships between Austen’s novels and the conversational culture of Austen’s time. alongside the above-quoted critical monographs by Phillips. while Juliet McMaster has written a very perceptive essay on Mrs Elton and other ‘verbal aggressors’ (McMaster 2002). even this small history has many currents.e. Part 2 counts fewer precedents. after completing the article which has now become Chapter 3. Mr Knightley. and the most interesting section of Tandon’s book is the one about the eighteenth-century debate on politeness. in the knowledge that they had been described separately elsewhere. while ‘Austen’s emphasis on conversation as a complex social performance has made her work fertile ground for the application of the language-use philosophy of Wittgenstein. Robin Gilmour draws a wellrounded historical portrait of ‘the idea of the gentleman’. . While this preface prefigures a pragmatic/conversational account of Austen’s fiction. / The window is starless still. the clock ticks. .12 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Ted Hughes’ famous description of poetic creation has a ‘thought-fox’ entering the ‘dark hole’ of the poet’s head to be formulated and typed (‘Till. with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox / It enters the dark hole of the head. The poem is written in loneliness. even if he/she were willing to do so. the hole of his/her head is well-lighted. And even if a wonderful thought-fox enters that hole. / The page is printed’. and nothing can be created until the last specimen is put in the same cage as the first. It may be a matter for contention whether that description is universally valid for poetic creation: but critical writing certainly takes different routes. [Hughes 1957/1986: 26]). The critic. in timelessness. in the absence of other voices silencing the poet’s. can never work in silent loneliness: other thought-foxes roam the same meadows as his/her own. the critic must go out of his/her room to chase after all the other foxes. and crowded. Part 1 Narrative . This page has been left blank intentionally . S&S has been interpreted as a satire on (excessive) sensibility. As Virginia Woolf famously had it. and at other times is a game played with the audience. others have seen her novels as mirroring a definite world view – a world view which has been interpreted in diametrically opposing ways. Speaking of E. We never know where to have it.. ‘of all great writers she is the most difficult to catch in the act of greatness’ (Southam 1987: 301). Austen entices unwary readers into assuming that she is straightforward . More recently and more generally. If we finish it at night and think we know what it is up to.Chapter 1 Jane Austen’s Narrators The Point of Fiction Many commentators of Jane Austen’s fiction have commented upon the difficulty of her narrative game. ‘at every fresh reading you feel anew that you never understood anything like the widening sum of its delights’ (Southam 1987: 266). Irvin Ehrenpreis has expressed the bafflement of all those who try to establish what Austen (or. has itself elicited similar divided comments as to its ideological function: Penny Gay has recently written that ‘As the critical literature demonstrates. it is – as I have said – quite reliable. but some readers have observed that Marianne/sensibility is shown to be much more fascinating than Elinor/sense (Nardin 1973: 10). we wake the next morning to believe it is up to something else. By sounding blunt and outspoken in many of her judgments. it has become a different book’ (Trilling 1957/1991: 122). almost universally held to be the most complex and the most elusive of her novels.  . MP – the litmus test of Austen studies in terms of this argument – has been read as an evangelical plea for old gentrified England and as a covert manifesto against the moral and social strictness of Austen’s time. can be used to support both a conservative and a radical reading of the novel’ (Gay 2002: 107). Lionel Trilling added that ‘the difficulty of Emma is never overcome. A traditional reading of Austen as an upholder of the patriarchal values of her society has been challenged by ‘revolutionary’ and/or feminist readings of the novels as subtle critiques of the same values. the unacted play at the centre of Mansfield Park. Miller 2003). Lovers’ Vows. as adapted by Inchbald. cf. while certain commentators have put their fingers on Austen’s invisibility (for a recent example. her narrator) is ‘up to’ in her novels: So the explicitness of the novelist is sometimes only apparent. Reginald Farrer wrote that if you read it twelve times over. Kotzebue’s play. (Ehrenpreis 1991: 118) However.. But it remains true that when Austen does plainly set forth her judgment. 16 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques How can these positions be reconciled with Farrer’s (1917) image of the author as a joycean divinity. that there is ample textual material in Austen’s novels to support them both. that Austen’s novels generate opposing interpretations: all great literature is supposed to do so. or.. Johnson has added that ‘Jane Austen always seems to inspire radically contradictory appeals to self-evidence’ (Johnson 1996/2001: 119). What is at once interesting and baffling is that these opposing readings appear to be equally justified. mitigates for us the transition out of her paradises back into the grey light of ordinary life.. conclude that the ‘point’ of (great) literature always eludes us. Conversely. indifferently paring her fingernails elsewhere? . just as few have inspired such divergent accounts of what exactly they are doing there in the first place’ (Johnson 1988: xiii). in Roger Fowler’s terms. Johnson has noted. Yet any story.. expresses. there may be a lesson to be learnt about how Austen’s particular  Though. what is it exactly? From our postmodern position in history. contradictory and elusive. we might dismiss all the business of finding a ‘point’ in Austen’s fiction – in all fiction – as self-evidently irrelevant. If few authors have occupied such an honored position in the ranks of great literature. make explicit (though sometimes ironic) announcements of beliefs. once again. She is there all the time.  Indeed. these axioms are certainly valid: novels are not pamphlets – and narrators. .. but never in propria persona. indeed. as the fantasmagoria in ‘Mansfield Park’. At the same time. are not authors. Is there a ‘point’ to her depiction of English gentry between the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries.. Have we not been taught that novels are not pamphlets? That the point of any narrative is the telling of a story? On the most basic level. impersonality comes as the first ingredient in the specific for immortality. this world-view seems to be. there seems to be uncertainty as to whether Jane Austen watches over her novels as a Victorian commentator or as a modernist detached observer. ‘Emma’ or ‘Northanger Abbey’ begins to thin out to its final pages. with her consummate sense of art. by letting the word ‘I’ demurely peer forth at last. except when she gaily smiles through the opener texture of ‘Northanger Abbey’. besides telling itself. it must never be conscious or obtruded . is ‘symptomatic of’. for Fowler it is (fictional) language in general that expresses a world view: modal devices . of course. their personalities and attitudes’ (Fowler 1986/1990: 132). or is there not? And if that ‘point’ is there. indirectly but nevertheless convincingly. the ability to instigate different readings has long been identified as a stigma of literary greatness. And in Austen’s case. consciously or unconsciously. at one and the same time. in written fiction. a ‘world-view’. The self-revelation of the writer must be as severely implicit as it is universally pervasive. may be symptomatic of worldview: it has traditionally been assumed in stylistics that the different ways people express their thoughts indicate. And while we might. Elsewhere.. (Southam 1987: 248) It comes as no surprise. other parts of language. Austen remains ‘one of the great anomalies of literary history. as Claudia L. 4. It is a more adaptable creature. he also provided a more detailed pattern. Besides this basic definition. we have come to accept that the text does not contain its author – it contains a narrator. is where things are rounded off – where the ‘(implied) author’. it may be useful to remind ourselves of two cultural facts. is most often found at the start (it is the ‘who. 6. in written as well as in oral narratives. Fleischman 1997. usually placed at the end of the narrative. in order to account for the higher degree of complexity to be found in some of the stories he analyzed. however. and can at most presuppose an ‘implied author’ with whom all readers ideally wish to be acquainted. the ‘abstract’ is usually provided by the title. nor the ‘model’ imagined by the author in order to write (Eco 1983: 50–53). Settling the Point: Evaluation In his seminal study of oral narratives told by young black Americans. or the ‘narrator’. Before embarking on a linguistic investigation of how Austen’s elusiveness is created. Black 2006): 1. the ‘coda’. it was customary to think of novels as ethical/ideological mirrors. ‘the implied author’ with ‘the real Jane Austen’. Pratt 1977. sometimes coalescing with the critic himself. what. 2. Abstract Orientation Complicating action Evaluation Result or resolution Coda (Labov 1972: 363) Some of these parts or stages may be present or not. because though it tends to cluster in certain areas of a  My ‘reader’. as will become apparent in the course of the chapter. ‘Evaluation’ is the most difficult ‘part’ or ‘stage’ to locate. of the story). In written fiction. The six parts or stages of this pattern can be and have been used to examine and dissect written as well as oral narratives (cf. where. consists of two temporally ordered clauses (Labov 1972: 360). when’. the ‘orientation’. 5. The second one is contemporary with Austen: in her time. .Jane Austen’s Narrators 17 elusiveness is constructed – how readers are enticed into looking for a point which consistently evades their grasp. in its minimal form. for instance Stockwell 2002) comes closest to the one delineated here. is neither the structural function ‘implied’ by the text (Iser 1978: 20–50). The first one is contemporary: in our time. perhaps the eclectic figure presupposed by the readings of certain ‘cognitive stylists’ (cf. and she would have expected at least certain categories of readers to deduce the author’s opinions from her writings – to conflate narrator with author. at other times pointing at various or conflicting interpretive possibilities. the ‘complicating action’ unsettles the initial balance and prepares the ‘resolution’. if it is to be found at all. parts company with the ‘reader’. William Labov wrote that a story. 3. Marina Dossena and Andreas H. in the characters’ as well as in the narrator’s discourse. as well as in any other kind of story. Some of Jane Austen’s novels (P&P.’ (P&P 1) The narrator. This open-endedness may be one of the reasons why Miss Bates’s speeches in E are regarded as boring and inconclusive (while they often hide crucial truths). As Michael Toolan puts it. for instance.. or a didactic point. Long has just been here. in dialogue as well as in narrative. Eggins and Slade 1997) have argued that Labov’s is only one of several narrative genres. Evaluative elements can be found. not all of them comprehending six parts. it is what demonstrates that the story is worth telling. as Labov himself defined it. E. it can be found anywhere. its raison d’être: why it was told. Bennet made no answer. ‘Do not you want to know who has taken it?’ cried his wife impatiently. is always instinctively held to be a more reliable evaluator than any single character. Certain systemic linguists working on storytelling (cf. the unfinished TW) are mostly made up of dialogue. to make very different points. at the beginning and end. and no two readers will exactly agree as to which stretches of text are evaluative and which are not – though certain passages are quite unequivocally evaluative. Bennet. and I have no objection to hearing it. “So What?” Every good narrator is continually warding off this question’ (Labov 1972: 366). Jucker have written that evaluation ‘is as elusive as pervasive in discourse – pervasive. a religious. because no text or utterance is ever absolutely free from it. and evaluative elements are hard to identify with any certainty. but there is variation along the genre and period axes).  ‘That is what we term the evaluation of the narrative: the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative. ‘Evaluation’. There are many ways to tell the same story.’ returned she. who take part in the  In the introduction to a recent collection of essays. elusive.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 18 text (traditionally. ‘But it is. Bennet replied that he had not. is the ‘point’ of a story: it can be a moral. has no resolution and displays only a minimum of evaluation. however. ‘for Mrs. To narrate is to bid for a kind of power’ (Toolan 1988/2001: 3).’ Mr.. more generally. In P&P. and what the narrator is getting at. An ‘anecdote’. evaluation is endemic. and when this is the case much of the evaluative work is as it were ‘embedded’ in direct (or indirect) speech. ‘You want to tell me. ‘have you heard that Netherfield is let at last?’ Mr. Even first-person ‘homodiegetic’ narrators.’ said his lady to him one day. because it may be difficult to say exactly what it is that gives the text or utterance that certain quality’ (Dossena and Jucker 2007: 7). we learn something about Mr and Mrs Bennet before the narrator tells us ‘who and what they are’: ‘My dear Mr. ‘narrators are typically trusted by their addressees . or to make no point at all. .  Labov himself describes a number of ways in which (oral) narrators distance themselves from the stories they tell by variously ‘embedding’ their evaluative comments (Labov 1972: 372–3). and she told me all about it. In a novel. to begin with. Pointless stories are met (in English) with the withering rejoinder. Chapter 3). before looking at how Austen’s narrators evaluate their fictional worlds (and at how they undermine their own evaluative work). and as such command the reader’s blind faith (or his/her gullibility. that these narratorial figures variously undermine their own authoritativeness and leave readers more or less stranded between the waves of conflicting interpretations. argumentative prose (Hoey 2000). . manuals or academic articles. text/discourse. have deliberately played with readers’ expectations by exploiting this ‘authoritativeness’ (cf. they will tend to believe all they say. Fowler 1986/1990: 131–2. and have attributed that quality to words. speakers/writers. they are like gods. a very promising new field of research on ‘evaluation’ as such has opened: the linguists working in this field are trying to unify the terminology and to build a general evaluative theory – and though the concept of ‘evaluation’ still seems ultimately irreducible to any satisfying unity. and only rarely come out of hiding to speak in the first person. their evaluative comments tend to have a ponderous weight on our interpretation of the novels – of what is going on. More recently. and latter-day followers like Ishiguro.. attitudinal force of language as ‘modality’ (cf. if we believe in the author mocking her audience).e. can display specifically signalled evaluative techniques). ‘affective meaning’. Modernist writers such as Conrad and James. However. because it is not necessarily linked to any particular linguistic items.Jane Austen’s Narrators 19 story and can therefore be suspected of having a personal interest in directing audience reactions. some interesting results have been obtained in the analysis of literary texts (Cortazzi and Jin 2000). Third-person ‘heterodiegetic’ narrators acquire an extra degree of authoritativeness by being impersonal (if that is the case) and situating themselves out of the action: within the space of their fictional world. sentences/utterances. etc. e. Morini 2002). These narrators never take part in the action. ‘attitude’. though. All of Austen’s narrators are third-person heterodiegetic narrators.: some terms of art are ‘connotation’. Therefore. some preliminary definitions of ‘evaluation’ are needed in order to define the range of textual data we are looking for. what is likely to happen. and can be confused with the ‘author’ to a lesser or greater degree. Scholars belonging to the field of stylistics have preferred to speak of the evaluative. written and oral academic discourse (Anderson and Bamford 2004).g. Evaluation is very difficult to locate. and readers will tend to treat them as such – i.  The inevitable (theoretical and terminological) starting point for any description of ‘narrative voice’ is the chapter on ‘Voix’ in Genette (1972: 225–67). Linguistic studies of evaluation have worked with different definitions of a very elusive quality. Simpson 1993: 46–55). It is my point. and it is not consistently signalled by any linguistic or metalinguistic means (at least in literary texts: other textual types. but they too have had to admit that modal elements are only the tip of the iceberg of attitude (cf. who are the good guys and the villains. etc. are considered more ‘authoritative’ than any other character. editors of a volume on Evaluation in Text. even when that narrator is also a character. 3. While it is important to insist on the interpenetration of these axes (judging the importance of an event can also imply gauging its expectedness and goodness). expectedness. interpersonal. because subversion is a form of reverse reflection. and conveniently substitutes ‘narrator’ for ‘writer’. however. the narrator maintains certain kinds of relations with his/her readers. to express the speaker’s or writer’s opinion. to construct and maintain relations between the speaker or writer and hearer or reader. we can think of an authorial figure creating a narrator within a fictional world. and importance’ (Thompson and Hunston 2000: 25). which are respectively expressive. we will see how the narrator him/herself . (Thompson and Hunston 2000: 6) If one thinks of evaluation in a novel. To give one very straightforward example. sequential chronology. and in so doing reflects (directly or indirectly) the value system of the community which has spawned him/her. Geoff Thompson and Susan Hunston. At the same time. and in doing so to reflect the value system of that person and their community. 11 The notion of ‘implied author’ looms behind the idea of ‘responsible authority’. events are arranged. and though ‘expectedness’ and ‘certainty’ can certainly be conflated. the modernists’ sense that the world could no longer be described from an external point of view. overtly or covertly. as shown in the incipit of Dickens’s  These three functions seem closely allied to Halliday’s three grammatical ‘metafunctions’ (Halliday 1985: xiii. and/or. there is no doubt that the three remaining parameters sum up the evaluative work performed by the authority (or authorities) in charge of a text. or of a part of that community. Ford Madox Ford. even dispositio is a form of evaluation. with the shadowy figure of the narratee (if given). and textual. certainty. and a certain kind of ideological slant (using ‘ideological’ in the widest possible sense) brings about certain forms of textual organization.11 In a novel. narrative reliability and providential finality led to the freer structures employed by Virginia Woolf. The narrator. we can skip the ‘implied author’ and think of the narrator as the person in charge of a narrative. within the space of the text. have identified three main functions of evaluation. because even if we cannot re-construct an author.20 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Textual (or discursive) evaluation is not simply a question of assessing what is good and what is bad. For the sake of simplicity. Thompson and Hunston identify four main parameters: ‘good-bad. one immediately sees the cogency of this tripartite definition. Finally. 2. 10 This is true even for ‘subversive’ novels. Though they insist that evaluation is essentially a unified phenomenon. to organize the discourse. what is important and what is not (though both axes are relevant). passim). James Joyce. 1. within the four walls of unified personality. and because we could by the same token identify countless intermediate stages.10 By telling his/her novelistic story. offers his/her point of view on the fictional world he presents. facts and characters are judged along those three axes. Jane Austen’s Narrators 21 David Copperfield (expectedness/certainty) and at the start of the second chapter of William McIlvanney’s Docherty (good-bad, importance): Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show. (Dickens 1849–1850/1994: 13) High Street was the capital of Conn’s childhood and boyhood. The rest of Graithnock was just the provinces. High Street, both as a terrain and as a population, was special. Everyone whom circumstances had herded into its hundred-and-so yards had failed in the same way. It was a penal colony for those who had committed poverty, a vice which was usually hereditary. (McIlvanney 1975/1996: 24) As shown by these textual sketches, however, though it is sometimes very evident that one is faced with an evaluative passage, it is by no means easy to determine the linguistic means by which evaluation is effected. In a novel, the most evident cases of evaluation are those in which the narrator commits him/herself to a categorical assertion along the good-bad, important-unimportant axes, or reflects on the probability of an event taking place (all of Austen’s narrators do all of these things). On other, subtler, occasions, an event or a character may be compared to another, a single modal expression used to determine probability or desirability (‘must’, ‘may’, ‘certainly’, ‘luckily’). Even more trickily, evaluation may be hidden in lexical choice, collocation, or contextual elements. The beginning of NA can be used as an illustration; it is only when one identifies the intertextual link with the gothic genre that the evaluative contours of the narrator’s discourse become visible: No one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy, would have supposed her born to be an heroine. Her situation in life, the character of her father and mother, her own person and disposition, were all equally against her. Her father was a clergyman, without being neglected, or poor and a very respectable man, though his name was Richard – and he had never been handsome. ... Her mother was a woman of useful plain sense, with a good temper, and, what is more remarkable, with a good constitution. She had three sons before Catherine was born; and instead of dying in bringing the latter to the world, as any body might expect, she still lived on – ’ (NA 5) Attempts at identifying an exhaustive list of linguistic evaluative tools are of course doomed to fail or to produce Lewis Carroll’s 1:1 map of the world.12 It is true, however, that evaluation tends to be effected by certain linguistic means, and that certain linguistic items almost invariably carry evaluative force. Stylisticians have classified narrators and narrative techniques according to the dominating presence of one or more ‘modality’ systems (cf. Simpson 1993: 46–55): ‘deontic’ (‘You may/must/should leave’, ‘it is necessary that you leave’), ‘boulomaic’ (‘I hope that can undermine and disperse his/her authority by conferring it on others, or by showing the uncertain grounds on which that authority is founded. 12 The reference is to Sylvie and Bruno Concluded (Carroll 1988: 556). 22 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques you will leave’, ‘I wish you’d leave’, ‘hopefully you’ll leave’), ‘epistemic’ (‘You may/must be right’, ‘You’re certainly/possibly right’), and ‘perceptive’ (‘it was evident that he was tired’). Even so, they have freely admitted that there is no fixed connection between modality and language, and that certain forms of evaluation seem to be too pervasive to be identified with any certainty. Evaluation scholars, in this as in other matters, adopt an all-embracing approach. Geoff Thompson and Susan Hunston start out from the assumption that evaluation can appear at the level of lexis, grammar, and text; but after trying to isolate specific lexical, grammatical and textual evaluative elements, they have to admit that the task is ultimately impossible or useless. Consequently, they decide to work with more general ‘conceptual’ entities. Evaluation, they say, can be comparative, subjective, value-laden. ‘Of these three groups, the third seems inherently more lexical in nature; but the first and the second are primarily grammatical’ (Thompson and Hunston 2000: 22): (1) Evaluation involves comparison of the object of evaluation against a yardstick of some kind: the comparators. These include: comparative adjectives and adverbs; adverbs of degree; comparator adverbs such as just, only, at least; expressions of negativity (morphological, such as un- and other affixes; grammatical, such as not, never, hardly; and lexical, such as fail, lack). (2) Evaluation is subjective: the markers of subjectivity. This is a very large group including: modals and other markers of (un)certainty; non-identifying adjectives; certain adverbs, nouns, and verbs; sentence adverbs and conjunctions; report and attribution structures; marked clause structures, including patterns beginning with it and there, and ‘Special Operations Clauses’ ... such as pseudoclefts. (3) Evaluation is value-laden: the markers of value. These may be divided into two groups: lexical items whose typical use is in an evaluative environment (the circularity of this definition seems unavoidable); and indications of the existence of goals and their (non-)achievement (‘what is good’ may be glossed as ‘what achieves our goals’ and ‘what is bad’ may be glossed as ‘what impedes the achievement of our goals’). (Thompson and Hunston 2000: 21) In the end, the catalogue is so vast that the critic is left to his own resources, and must brave the pitfalls of ‘epistemic circularity’ on his own (cf. Chapter 3). However, some of these tools, analyses and definitions may be useful in defining how evaluation works in Austen’s novels. Evaluation and Austen’s Novels We are now in a position to redefine the difficulties many readers have experienced who have tried to put their fingers on ‘what Jane Austen is saying’, or ‘what narrative game Jane Austen is playing’. It is my contention that these difficulties can be summed up in one general problem – the problem of tracing evaluative patterns in Jane Austen’s Narrators 23 Austen’s novels. This problem is not merely a consequence of the pervasive and elusive qualities of evaluation in general, or of the fact that novels are not pamphlets and have, therefore, no clear ‘point’ to make: such novels as Dickens’s Hard Times or D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover do display a clear evaluative pattern – whatever different directions their fictional structures may take in spite of it. As seen above, Austen’s novels also seem to invite evaluative scrutiny, while many novels of similar complexity do not – no serious critic would dream of finding the ‘point’ of Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway, for instance, unless the point is a universal one about the nature of mankind.13 But the reader’s search for Austen’s ‘point’ is frustrated as consistently as it is instigated, and a web of ‘evaluative opacity’ is created which does not coincide with evaluative absence. Austen creates this web of opacity less by withdrawing evaluation than by dismantling the authority of the evaluative sources she sets up. In fiction, the evaluative source par excellence is of course the narrator: even when the physically present spinner of yarns becomes a disembodied voice hovering over a neutrally-told story, a narrative function still remains to give substance to facts and words.14 In Austen’s novels, the narrator as an evaluative centre can still be identified, sometimes even personally, but his/her evaluations cannot be relied upon to provide a centripetal interpretation of events. Some literary critics, though stopping short of a linguistic analysis of Jane Austen’s dismantling of authority, have grappled with the problem of narrative unreliability in her fiction. Many of these critics have brought post-structuralist exegetic concepts to bear against some of her novels, particularly E (cf. Holly 1989; Rosmarin 1984/1991). Richard F. Patteson has written about ‘the multiplicity of narrative voice’ which ‘makes the reader’s search for determinacy even more difficult than the characters’’ (Patteson 1981: 465). Tara Goshal Wallace has observed the moves by which Austen’s narrators renounce omniscience, or partially disappear from ‘their’ narratives, from LS to P (Wallace 1995). D.A. Miller has identified a conflict in Austen’s novels between ‘closure’ and ‘the narrative dynamic itself, which can never be accommodated in a final settlement’ (Miller 1981: xii). In a totally different vein, Bernard J. Paris has suggested that while narrative structures may present ‘an abstract moral perspective ... Realistic characterization fights against theme as well as against form’ (Paris 1978/1979: 20); in MP, for instance, Fanny’s ‘real’ character undermines Austen’s project of making her the heroine of a conservative evangelical novel: 13 Toolan interestingly defines narrative ‘point’ in a didactic manner: ‘A narrative is a perceived sequence of non-randomly connected events, typically involving, as the experiencing agonist, humans or quasi-humans, or other sentient beings, from whose experience we humans can “learn”’ (Toolan 1988/2001: 8). 14 Cf. Fludernik (1993: 443): ‘I am here modifying and refining Chatman’s views on the narrator ... I reject Chatman’s ‘narrator at all times’ (including a ‘cinematic narrator’), but decisively maintain the existence of narration, and a gradual scale between an overt (personalized) narrator persona and a more covert narrative voice all the way to an objective backgrounded narrative function in reflector mode narrative’. . in their turn. These narrators employ both ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ strategies: at times they speak from outside the consciousness of their characters. that many readers cannot identify with Fanny’s hopes and fears or admire her character and values in the ways that they must if the novel’s comic pattern and rhetoric are to have their desired effects. I believe. however.e. in and through narrative. The problem with Austen’s narrators is that they seem to change during the course of each novel. Austen’s narrators offer ‘strong evaluations’ of people and actions. it is not surprising that many Austen readers feel the interpretive ground slipping from beneath their feet: they look to the evaluative centre of the novel to know where they stand. The fact remains. Given these premises.24 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques There are a number of brilliant essays which explain “what Jane Austen meant by the creation of such a heroine” as Fanny Price . these ‘strong evaluations’ mostly occur during the initial ‘Orientation’ and the final ‘Result’ and ‘Coda’. all of them. if a highly privileged one. they profess omniscience. characters’ thoughts and feelings): these moments are usually situated at crucial stages of the narrative. to look at it from another angle. There are moments in which Austen’s ‘category B’ narrators work in the ‘narratorial positive’ mode (i. In these conditions.. and why’ (Cortazzi and Jin 2000: 104). but that centre is continually shifting or disappearing from view. but these oscillate between ‘narratorial’ and ‘reflector’ modes. as well as when . (Paris 1978/1979: 22) Post-structuralist and psycho-analytic views highlight two different but related sources of evaluative unreliability in Austen’s fiction: on the one hand. When working in the ‘narratorial positive’ mode. or. To fall back on Labov’s 1972 pattern. Some critics complain that Fanny is insipid. In this heteroglossal context. and past actions (Simpson 1993: 55–75). is that Fanny is a highly realized mimetic character whose human qualities are not compatible with her aesthetic and thematic roles. they sometimes employ (and mingle with) one or more reflectors through which the action is shown. it becomes hard. In the terms of Paul Simpson’s exhaustive classification. mostly on the ‘good-bad’ and ‘importance’ axis. and ultimately impossible. others that she is a prig. whereas on other occasions they claim knowledge of thoughts.. Sometimes the centre does hold. feelings. and their vision disturbingly hovers between omniscience and ignorance. the novel is an inherently ‘heteroglossal’ genre (Bakhtin 1963/1984). Austen’s novels always display ‘category B’ narrators. etc. so that readers are encouraged to think that they will set the norm for the rest. are often refuted by the unfolding of events. that they react differently to the various characters and events it falls to their lot to introduce and describe. they move freely between past and future events. to establish ‘who evaluates what. Furthermore. They are.. ‘evaluation’ becomes ‘engagement’ with what other voices say (Martin and White 2005: 92–3). yet their level of detachment varies greatly. where the narrator’s is only one of the voices at play. third-person heterodiegetic narrators. The major source of difficulty. claiming or showing ignorance of facts or thoughts. the narrator tends to undermine his/her own authority by contradicting him/herself. or rather. Austen’s narrators tend to undermine their own authority and/or leave evaluative room to other characters – whose views. on the other hand. Jane Austen’s Narrators 25 new characters have to be introduced. in the centre of their property . however.. is to be ill-disposed .. gentlemanlike man . was amply provided for by the fortune of his mother . (S&S 1–5) The information Austen’s narrators provide. not too clever to be a valuable neighbour to Mrs.. Henry Dashwood’s son] was not an ill-disposed young man.. the legal inheritor of the Norland estate. but as she had already imbibed a good deal of Marianne’s romance. and coolness of judgment .. unless to be rather cold hearted. In the ‘Orientation’. But Mrs. at thirteen. as a mark of his affection for the three girls.. Mr. By a former marriage... The son. she did not. and not at all elegant. and the person to whom he intended to bequeath it . no new character is launched without a few introductory words: Lady Lucas was a very good kind of woman. bid fair to equal her sisters at a more advanced period of life. possessed a strength of understanding. Their estate was large. when a new actor appears on stage.. friendly and hospitable. Perry was an intelligent. He [Henry Dashwood’s uncle] meant not to be unkind.... For the main part of each novel. without having much of her sense. not much educated. [Mr John Dashwood. [Norland Park] was secured.. is complementary to this initial orientation. Marianne’s abilities were. and their residence was at Norland Park.. as to leave him no power of providing for those who were most dear to him .. where the narrator is mostly noted for his/her absence and reticence. he invited and received into his house the family of his nephew Mr.. The resemblance between her and her mother was strikingly great . She was sensible and clever.. and. by his present lady. almost invariably.. and his son’s son. (P 38) However. and rather selfish. after the initial orientation. a steady respectable young man. and Mrs. for their fortune . he left them a thousand pounds a-piece . could be but small . in many respects. and readers are left to their own resources. Even in E. To him therefore the succession to the Norland estate was not so really important as to his sisters. Bennet.. to [Henry Dashwood’s] son.. the other sister.. The old gentleman died . John Dashwood was a strong caricature of himself. The late owner of this estate was a single man .. Austen’s narrators usually provide social and financial information on the main dramatis personae and judge their moral and social character. in such a way. . Musgrove were a very good sort of people.... was a good-humoured well-disposed girl.. Elinor . – more narrowminded and selfish . three daughters.. (P&P 12) Mr. Henry Dashwood had one son.. Henry Dashwood. (E 16) Mr. but eager in every thing . she was every thing but prudent. quite equal to Elinor’s.. this ‘positive’ evaluative handling soon disappears... The first Chapter of S&S provides most of the practical and psychological information we need on the Dashwood family: The family of Dashwood had been long settled in Sussex.. Margaret. 15 Generally speaking. in the ‘result’ and the ‘coda’.). and leads the audience to appreciation of an even more sophisticated pleasure: recognition of the creative energy of the author and the actors’. A lady always does. need not be particularly told. when it takes charge to condense certain parts of the story. and Inchbald: such strategies represented a reaction against ‘a generation of overblown language of sentimentality . like the principal actress.. and invites applause for her – and her company’s – performance. what readers are offered is a prolonged and reticent Narrative Report of Speech Act(s) (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 318–36). and audience – been involved in . or. yet the moments when he/she demonstrably evaluates the narrative are few and far between (though of course. If this most important emotion cannot be expressed well.26 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques the narrator employs many strategies of invisibility and reticence: he/she does not vanish completely. in what manner he expressed himself. however. sometimes supplemented by half-moral comments. often uttered with half a tongue in the narrator’s cheek:16 How soon he had walked himself into the proper resolution. takes a similar position on the stage of her own creations. in Shakespeare’s As You Like It as well as in more recent productions. When a marriage proposal takes place. the narrator prefers to make a summary of the facts rather than merely repeat the characters’ words.. even organization.. particularly in the coda. Austen and contemporary novelists imply. putting on with a flourish the mask of “author” and speaking with affectionate irony of the story that we have all – author. or fall into absolute silence. ‘For a gleeful extra minute or so of theatre time’. dispositio. (S&S 317) What did she say? – Just what she ought. Shakespeare’s Rosalind ‘plays with the audience’s expectations of conventional gender behaviour. which were also employed... is a form of ‘textual’ evaluation). actors. The narrative voice comes back to the surface only at the end. to judge past events and anticipate future developments. . it ought not to be expressed at all’ (Thompson 1988: 72–3). In the late eighteenth century. etc. 16 James Thompson has noted the conventional character of these summaries. by Scott. implying that [previous] novelists had used up the language of emotion. and how he was received. (E 391) In the summing-up coda. In doing so she both ironises the apparent closure of the story that the audience has just enjoyed. Austen’s narrators oscillate between the light irony and benevolence of E (where Mrs Elton’s ventriloquized criticism of Emma and Mr Knightley’s wedding is counterbalanced by their friends’ concluding faith in 15 Penny Gay offers a theatrical interpretation of these final interventions. Austen. between another woman and the second-best man. is both inside and outside the novel as it ends: both authoritatively knowledgeable about her fictional world. the ‘result’ of all of Austen’s novels is marriage (between the heroine and the most desirable man. such famous actresses as Dorothy Jordan and Frances Abington were often assigned the task of reciting the final prologue. of course. In Leech and Short’s classification of speech and thought presentation modes.. and ironically dismissive of its reality’ (Gay 2002: 166–7). Edgeworth. her novels. among others. Gay suggests that ‘Jane Austen . how soon an opportunity of exercising it occurred. the narrator employs a variety of value-laden expressions (‘the indignities of stupidity’. where villains are both punished and reproached. or because it is not clear who is speaking/thinking.Jane Austen’s Narrators 27 ‘the perfect happiness of the union’. Rushworth had no difficulty in procuring a divorce. in P&P and E). it must be the author’s). In this case. which could allow no second spring of hope or character. When Willoughby first appears in S&S. and the disappointments of selfish passion. Firstly. ‘reproach’) which leave the reader in no doubt as to the deontic character of that final ‘must’: Mr. an Interest Principle. often unmediated by the narrator (above all. the effect of good luck.. Let us first examine the narrator’s evaluative reticence. ‘punishment’. not to be reckoned on. till some other pretty girl could attract him into matrimony again. Sometimes. (MP 364–5) These narrative apparitions can have a twofold effect on readers: on the one hand. In the Chawton novels. they convince them that the author or the narrator will be or has been in charge throughout – which is very far from being the case. for instance. even when readers start to suspect him of double dealing. and he might set forward on a second. Secondly. or of what Leech calls the ‘interest principle’:17 the narrator does not want to uncover his/her plans. to be duped at least with good humour and good luck. and it is to be hoped. nor does he/she pry into his real feelings. which is apparently at odds with his/her openness in the openings and closings. they can still hope he will act honourably by Marianne. in the sense of having unpredictability or news value. even when the narrator is present. they create in their minds a conflation of the narrator with the ‘author’ (because if an opinion is forcibly expressed by a third-person heterodiegetic narrator. ‘conduct’. as he/she would if he/she offered explicit evaluation of a character or an event. his/her opinions cannot be readily identified – because they are not expressed explicitly enough. She had despised him. ‘mortified’. ‘the disappointments of selfish passion’. narrative reports of speech acts). but by no means only.. so. and so ended a marriage contracted under such circumstances as to make any better end. ‘guilt’. narrative reticence becomes 17 Leech formulates this principle to account for certain ‘uncommunicative’ features of conversation. as did a deeper punishment. He was released from the engagement to be mortified and unhappy. the greater part of Austen’s novels is made up of dialogue (free and bound direct and indirect speech. is preferred to conversation which is boring and predictable’ (Leech 1983: 146). and loved another – and he had been very much aware that it was so. while she must withdraw with infinitely stronger feelings to a retirement and reproach. the deeper guilt of his wife. but the definition can be easily adapted to the written word: ‘I shall tentatively propose . more prosperous trial of the state – if duped. The indignities of stupidity. the narrator does not judge him on the ethical plane (on the ‘good-bad’ axis). E 440) and the harsh retributive morality of MP. . can excite little pity. by which conversation which is interesting. because they are contradictory. on the other. His punishment followed his conduct. this reticence is a function of mystery. The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much her own way. he/she falls back on a positive perspective which allows him/her to establish the ‘real evils indeed of Emma’s situation. from the eponymous heroine downwards: Emma Woodhouse.. though. Jane Austen’s novels are permeated with evaluative opacity. seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence . initially. handsome. and rich. because readers cannot be sure whether the narrator knows or does not know about people’s morals and feelings. (E 3–4) This quotation also illustrates the second source of narrative unreliability. results and codas be excepted. on the good-bad. an ignorant or reticent narrator omits crucial information – or does not signal the importance of certain details. Not infrequently.. we learn that Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax are engaged only towards the end of the novel. This is a standard pragmatic canon employed in all genres to keep the reader out of the know in order to bend the sjuzhet to the narrator’s ends. I am referring to the extreme application of the infraction of the submaxim of quantity. on other occasions. We have already seen how on certain occasions. we are never told who betrays Elizabeth Bennet and Darcy’s secret to Lady Catherine (cf. let us examine one type of infraction that is crucial in creating implicature. In the space of a few paragraphs.. Sutherland 1999: 17–22)..18 In E. even though various hints are dropped before that stage. where sufficient information referring to a key event would be expected in normal circumstances in order to clarify the action.28 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques the rule – if orientations. as breaches of Grice’s maxim of quantity: ‘To illustrate both how radical and how arresting the pragmatic manipulation of language can be. from the early LS to the mature P: 18 John Douthwaite defines these ‘information gaps’ in pragmatic terms. whereas in the second. and importance axes. it takes the peculiar form of listing both good and bad qualities of (almost) all characters. including maintaining the tension high and keeping readers glued to the page. her narrators refuse to provide open evaluations of certain characters (Willoughby. clever. and a disposition to think a little too well of herself . the narrator shifts from a ‘negative’ to a ‘positive’ mode: in the first sentence. In P&P. certainty. but none is provided.’ This kind of oscillation produces epistemological uncertainty. or of evaluative confusion in the narrator’s discourse. he/she adopts an external point of view which forces him/her to make conjectures about the real state of affairs (Emma ‘seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence’). Its use is particularly prevalent and transparent in one genre which relies on this device as its mainstay: detective stories’ (Douthwaite 2000: 236). . for instance Mr Weston’s story. with a comfortable home and happy disposition. in E. the Crawfords in MP). the narrator openly pleads his/her ignorance. Owing to narratorial ignorance or reticence. but also. told in Chapter 2 of E). about past and future events. The same is true of events: sometimes an omniscient narrator informs his/her readers about facts which have taken place on a different temporal plane (cf. 19 If. the narrator is seen as a character among many (though one with a special functional status). Wayne C. or The Secret of Style. but not impersonal. Miller confines the novels which most evidently disprove his theory of impersonality to the periphery of the Austen canon: NA is ‘The least revised of Austen’s early novels’. on the other hand.A. in inverted commas – both a character and a dramatized projection of the ‘implied author’. the narrator’s powers are limited much as a character’s would. In Jane Austen. as well as affections. however. She has abilities. che ha appunto la funzione di narratrice. (P 201) In the first case. Beatrice Battaglia distinguishes between ‘the Author as a director [l’Autrice nei panni di regista]’ and ‘the narrative voice [which] belongs to a character who has the function of narrator – a character who has the historical attributes of the omniscient. and it is now a doubtful point whether his cunning. In his seminal study of E in The Rhetoric of Fiction. while P is ‘the great false step of Austen Style’ (Miller 2003: 33. but simplistically attributes this centrifugal quality to the absence of a perceptible narrator (‘Austen’s work most fundamentally consists in dematerializing the voice that speaks it’. by being situated in time and in an individual psyche. While Miller’s identification of a void. 68). authority. In both instances. Booth identified the narrator with “Jane Austen”. in the second. ben caratterizzato storicamente come il personaggio della Narratrice omnisciente e didattica della letteratura moralistica antigiacobina ed evangelica]’ (Battaglia 1983: 128). for the young man’s sake. . and his/her evaluative and epistemological uncertainties become a sign of human. D. or was not happy in her second Choice – I do not see how it can ever be ascertained – for who would take her assurance of it. they become characters. 20 In her analysis of MP.Jane Austen’s Narrators 29 Whether Lady Susan was. his conflation of this ‘cut’ with the narrator’s disappearance clashes with all those instances in which the narrator makes a nameless. Clay’s affections had overpowered her interest. may finally carry the day. on either side of the question? The World must judge from probability. The very individual quality of Austen’s narrators clashes with the omniscience they also claim at certain stages: if sometimes they seem to be looking at the action from above. a ‘cut’ (Miller 2003: 34) at the heart of the novels is instructive. on other occasions they descend upon the earth and betray their position – they say ‘I’.20 Booth observed that this dramatized “Jane Austen” is sometimes unreliable (‘Is the mystery purchased at the price of shaking the 19 Predictably. Miller 2003: 32). and she had sacrificed. appearance. no longer godlike. the narrator/editor (Lady Susan is a short epistolary novel with a very short narrative coda) professes him/herself unable to guess a character’s thoughts and feelings. or hers. he/she pleads ignorance of the future. his/her personal interventions need no longer be seen as intrusions. (LS 249) Mrs. Miller rightly observes that Austen’s novels lack a strong evaluative centre (‘Austen’s divinity is free of all accents that might identify it with a socially accredited broker of power/knowledge in the world under narration’. the possibility of scheming longer for Sir Walter. didactic she-Narrator of anti-jacobin and evangelical literature [la voce narrante [di] un personaggio. Miller 2003: 6–7). renunciation of omniscience). old-fashioned Boarding-school . Finally.21 I come now to the relation of a misfortune. 21 The ‘author’ also addresses his/her ‘audience’. although there doubtless are such unconquerable young ladies of eighteen (or one should not read about them) as are never to be persuaded into love against their judgment by all that talent. attention. I have no inclination to think Fanny one of them . the confusion with the historical Jane Austen is almost inevitable). in long sentences of refined nonsense. and is free to move in the consciousness of his/her characters. the narrator. which about this time befell Mrs. (P&P 295) . personification and fallibility.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 30 reader’s faith in Jane Austen’s integrity?’ Booth 1961: 254).. and flattery can do. that the accomplishment of her earnest desire in the establishment of so many of her children. (S&S 216) I wish I could say.. because Fanny is not one of those romantic characters peopling the novels the narrator is taking a swipe at). In MP. for the sake of [Mrs Bennet’s] family.. honest.. Booth 1961: 266).e. as well as alternatively knowing and guessing.. (E 18) In all these cases. though speaking in the first person. or any thing which professed. amiable. in E. thus foregrounding him/herself as a character. produced so happy an effect as to make her a sensible. well-informed woman for the rest of her life. or at least a persona. it is true that absence and omniscience often go together (a prejudice having to do with our received ideas on God) – and a humorous narrator speaking in the first person. .. and that her presence is a key structural element of the novel (‘The dramatic illusion of her presence as a character is as important as any other element in the story’. is in full charge of the narrative: he/she knows what has happened and will happen. the ‘narrator’ addresses his/her ‘narratees’. manner. John Dashwood. In the quotations from S&S and P&P. to combine liberal acquirements with elegant morality upon new principles and new systems – and where young ladies for enormous pay might be screwed out of health and into vanity – but a real. but he failed to link unreliability and presence. the narrator-as-a-character (a figure conflated by many with Austen herself) comes out of impersonal hiding. When the narrator of P says that Lady Russel’s aversion to the idea of a second marriage ‘needs no apology to the public’ (P 11). but by expressing in a very direct manner his/her personal opinions on contemporary affairs (in this case. we are encouraged to think of him/her as a person. Whereas it is probably excessive to say that ‘an omniscient narrator destroys his authority the moment he says I’ (Black 2006: 14). (MP 181) Mrs Goddard was the mistress of a school – not of a seminary. i. or an establishment.. the narrator comes out not by saying ‘I’. certainly does lose a great part of his/her reliability. though in different ways and with different degrees of omniscience (or. the narrator is guessing at possibilities and measuring a (limited) knowledge of Fanny’s inclinations against her background and situation (though one implicature of the text between parentheses is that the narrator does know what would happen if Henry Crawford persisted. g. smile). thinking. psychological. and the many instances in which Austen’s narrators and reflectors become virtually indistinguishable. 24 Peter W. 23 For a definition and a four-way taxonomy of mental process clauses applicable to Jane Austen’s novels. readers may tend to see things from that character’s visual. speak). wonder). Halliday (1976: 165): ‘Mental process clauses are of four main types: perception (e. there is greater linguistic similarity between heroines and narrators than between any two characters in each novel – what Bakhtin called ‘stylisation’ (Bakhtin 1934–41/1981: 301–66). Graham. After the initial orientation conducted by the narrator. In order to discriminate between these two techniques (both of them alternately used in all novels. all of Austen’s novels pivot on one central character whose consciousness the narrator can penetrate. readers are plunged into the consciousness of the heroine. but who also mixes with the narrator him/herself. This plunge takes place later in the early works. From the mock-gothic part of NA onwards. and verbalization (e. or perceiving:24 22 Cf. One of the great pleasures in reading Austen is being tricked by the heroine’s mistake’ (De Forest and Johnson 2001: 398). like.’ In all of Austen’s novels. however. all forms of perception pivot on the sense of sight: ‘The primacy of the eye is important here. Their voices blend with the narrators’.22 A distinction is needed. however. look). and readers no longer know who is speaking. when all characters have been introduced and events set in motion. The last is in fact rather different from the other three’. . The narrator penetrates the reflector’s consciousness by the use of ‘mental process clauses’ (Halliday 1985: 107). while in the Chawton novels the reflector is employed more consistently. and ideological perspective. reaction (e. who also comment on how the conflation of narrator and heroine/reflector tricks the reader into giving the latter more credibility than she deserves: ‘It is no coincidence that Austen’s four great heroines are all within two percentage points of their narrators. please. convince.g. and we unconsciously give them the authority of the actual storyteller . and as Ira Konigsberg points out the novel as practiced by Austen and her eighteenth-century predecessors responded to this new understanding. verbs see. When the narrator consistently places the narrative focus within a character’s consciousness (it happens throughout Emma).g.. believe. De Forest and Johnson.g. a central reflecting consciousness is employed. cognition (e. notes that in Austen’s fiction. The mixture is stylistic as well as narratological: as literary critics have noted and computational linguists have statistically demonstrated. John Locke considered thought itself a visual process. between the cases in which a central character functions as a reflector. evaluative confusion reaches a peak. But when this central consciousness and the narrator are blended. though with different proportions).23 Readers are told what the reflector is feeling. at times in an inextricable manner.Jane Austen’s Narrators 31 Another fluctuating movement exhibited by Jane Austen’s narrators – one that further complicates the network of evaluation – is the continual shift of perspective from the narrator to one or more characters – with the heroine usually taking up the role of reflector. I propose a distinction between ‘mimetic’ and ‘non-mimetic reflector. and in E we are allowed to abandon Emma’s gaze and feelings only once or twice. say.. cf. . Rushworth and Maria. and glad would she have been not to be obliged to listen . spatial. occasional ‘sensing’ reminders are inserted to signal that the angle of vision has not been shifted: Fanny supposed she must have been mistaken.. Norris – her eyes directed towards Mr. but with all that submission to Edmund could do. Croft’s seeing Kellynch-hall. Anne found it most natural to take her almost daily walk to Lady Russel’s. This is not to say that novels confine themselves to what the eye can see. she knew not always what to think.. and keep out of the way till all was over . on a point of some similarity.32 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Every object in the next day’s journey was new and interesting to Elizabeth. and all the help of the coinciding looks and hints which she occasionally noticed in some of the others. and she was speaking with great animation. and had not thought about her. then describes a scene and reports a conversation as seen through her eyes and heard by her ears. readers are used to Fanny functioning as a deictic/psychological centre. 25 The process here is one of doing rather than sensing. Crawford’s choice. Mr. italics mine) The narrator first selects Fanny as ‘senser’.. Miss Bertram did indeed look happy. and could not help wondering as she listened. her eyes were sparkling with pleasure. At the end of the passage. were close to her.. to the hopes of her aunt Norris on this subject. and throughout the reflector narrative.. one evening. Fanny could not recollect. for Julia and her partner.’ said Mrs. (P 31)25 From this first plunge onwards. . thought itself is visual in novels’ (Graham 2008: 9–10). and psychological pivot of the narrative. and which seemed to say that Julia was Mr. Rushworth. and the feelings of Mrs. for she had been dancing with Edmund herself.’. ma’am. (MP 52) On the morning appointed for Admiral and Mrs. who were partners for the second time – ‘we shall see some happy faces again now. and meant to think differently in future. Crawford.. and with the exception of all those cases in which the narrator comes into the open. as well as to her feelings. (P&P 119) Fanny could not wonder that Edmund was at the parsonage every morning . ‘I think. this pivot functions as a deictic centre. (MP 92–3. Rather. How she had looked before. When a scene is described. as it “directly confronted the problem of perception in both its narrative technique and its subject matter”.. and her spirits were in a state of enjoyment. for example her unwillingness to be in the way when the Crofts visit her family house as prospective tenants. and will tend to interpret that ‘indeed’ as belonging to her (as if she had turned her gaze towards Julia Bertram and Henry Crawford to verify the probability of her and thereby became the dominant literary genre of the period. they were all in a cluster together. the heroine becomes the temporal. She was privy. yet we are also allowed an insight into Anne’s feelings. there is a continuum from pure narrative words to pure character words. as a vehicle for stream-ofconsciousness or the clashing of two voices. we may suspect the reflecting narrator of a (psychological) omission: we are told that Fanny had not thought about Julia before because she was dancing with Edmund – but the reason is given in passing. however. The term “alignment” also helps us keep in mind that. Other narratologists prefer to see this blending of voices in terms of ‘free indirect speech’ (Pascal 1977: 45–60) or ‘free indirect discourse’ (Fludernik 1993) – the narrator moving towards the character. Michael Toolan identifies ‘free indirect discourse’ as a privileged means to ‘align’ the narrator with a character: ‘I favour the word “alignment” because it doesn’t prescribe whether that closeness of narrator to character is going to be used for purposes of irony. I have already observed how narrators employ the reflector technique in order to sift knowledge before presenting it to their readers (Morini 2002: 77.Jane Austen’s Narrators 33 aunt’s suppositions). however. Fanny is again selected as senser before the end of the paragraph (‘How she had looked before.. it becomes impossible to attribute evaluative comments with any certainty to one or the other. and it is left to the reader to guess (or learn later) that since she is in love with Edmund. or whatever: the alignment is perceived. many mysteries are unveiled for the reader when they are unveiled for Emma. In other instances. Fanny could not recollect’): readers are reminded that they are looking at the fictional world through her eyes. imitating his/her voice. then the function (or “naturalization”) is worked out by the reader. In the excerpt from MP quoted above. Even in the above passage from MP. ‘she was speaking with great animation’) could be grammatically assigned to the narrator as well as the reflector (though logic leads to the latter).27 In an article comparing modernist narrative techniques with Austen’s. she could not help feeling . and evaluation becomes even more elusive. with any number of points on that continuum’ (Toolan 1988/2001: 135). in terms of lexicogrammatical markers and aesthetic or narrative effect..’): 26 In Thompson and Hunston’s three-way definition. or Fanny’s. Violeta Sotirova envisages ‘a conversational model for free indirect style’ in which free indirect discourse can be seen as representing a dialogue between different or contrasting points of view (Sotirova 2004: 225–6). very little else is likely to engage her attention when she is with him. certain words and clauses (‘indeed’. 83–93). neither grammar nor logic offer any guidance. and that they are not allowed to see what she does not. vision – physical and moral – is compared with Mrs Norris’s). this would count as ‘comparative evaluation’ (the narrator’s. empathy. is misleading (at least for Austen). The following passage from P&P describes a social occasion which the narrator shows through Elizabeth Bennet’s eyes (The chapter begins: ‘Convinced as Elizabeth now was . In E. when a mimetic reflector is substituted for its non-mimetic counterpart. Things become even more complicated.The notion of free indirect discourse as a hold-all term. in that it suggests that an imitation of speech or thought is always present – while my description of blending includes all those cases in which it is point of view alone that sustains the conflation between character and narrator. which is clearly non-mimetic. . 27 This technical account is very close to Hough’s idea of ‘coloured narrative’ (Hough 1970/1991: 173)...26 If any doubts should arise. When the narrator and the reflector are completely conflated. to come back to Simpson’s taxonomy of narrators. In this case. because each heroine is a spokesman for her narrator (or. agreeablelooking woman. the nature of speech and thought presentation is such that the boundaries between different techniques are not always clear-cut. illustrates very well the concept of ‘irony’ in relevance theory: according to Wilson and Sperber.34 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques By Mrs.28 In Darcy’s presence [Elizabeth] dared not mention Wickham’s name . However.. the narrator overtly appears to endorse the proposition expressed by the relative clause. but. More generally still. awkward as such pauses must always be.. succeeded for a few moments. or both? In other words. It was first broken by Mrs. while dissociating [him/herself] from it with anything from mild ridicule to savage scorn’ (Wilson and Sperber 1992/1996: 265). is to prove the heroines wrong. proved her to be more truly well bred than either of the others . presentation. are the italicized evaluative comments to be allotted to Elizabeth. One could say that it is not so crucial to distinguish between the narrator’s and the reflector’s voices. Chapter 2). Annesley. how are readers to tell if the thought is attributable to the narrator or the reflector? In the above passages. that a single man in possession of a good fortune.. Free indirect thought is particularly tricky: in the absence of clear signals (and in a novel whose narrator seems to be omniscient and not omniscient. or ventriloquizing appropriation. Though that may be the case. they were noticed only by a curtsey. exerting herself vigorously to repel the ill-natured attack. (P&P 205. for Jane Austen).. the narrators occasionally use not only their heroines. but even such unsympathetic characters as Mrs Norris as reflectors (cf. in E. Jane Austen is an eclectic master of thought. in these cases we no longer know if the narrator is working in the narratorial or in the reflector mode. Finch and Bowen 1990). a pause. and therefore heroine and narrator are one from the ideological point of view. must be in want of a wife’ (P&P 1). narrative reports of speech acts (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 337–51). italics mine) As many have noted. agreeable-looking woman’). as well as the kind of ‘tittle-tattle’ one could hear in Bath or in the village of Highbury (cf. she presently answered the question in a tolerably disengaged tone. . While the definition of irony as echoic language does not hold for all ironical statements 28 This passage contains a different example of ‘comparative’ (‘more truly well bred’) mixed with ‘value-laden evaluation’ (‘a genteel. This kind of ‘stylisation’. however. MP and P. for instance. the narrator. and on their being seated. as well as speech. The famous incipit of P&P is a typical example: ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged. a genteel. and appears to be working both in the ‘positive’ and in the ‘negative mode’). whose endeavour to introduce some kind of discourse. it is as simplistic to equate narrator with character as it is unfeasible to identify narrator with author: it has been often noted that the ‘point’ of E and NA. but a certain degree of exaggeration suggests that the endorsement may not be totally heart-felt. free direct and indirect thought. She employs direct and indirect thought. the narrator is apt to ‘ventriloquize’ the speech of all characters. irony is ‘echoic language’: ‘The speaker echoes a thought [he/she] attributes to someone else. Hurst and Miss Bingley. Traditional ‘ironical’ readings of Jane Austen (cf. The presence of “Jane Austen” awakens the reader’s desire to know Jane Austen’s mind. Choice or Chance? One cannot help concluding that Jane Austen is difficult to catch at her narrative game because she does not want to be caught. or in the meanderings of description. But in Jane Austen’s novels. and opacity becomes the rule of the most crystal-clear of narrative creations. she allows us no stable source of authoritativeness.29 In the end. With a further complicating move. she perfects a number of narrative strategies that allow her to transform a third-person narrator into a character. Semino 2002: 97): in this theoretical framework. in what measure) from the other voices it swallows. however. Logic. or whether they are only following this or that character (or the narrator-as-a-character) in their misreadings. to conflate this character with others. one reading is not simply substituted for another: interpretations are heaped upon interpretations. loudly commenting on. cultural. Austen’s irony can be seen as playing with various degrees of confusion/conflation between these two planes. religious or political in origin. it applies very well to the kind of appropriating game Austen’s narrator plays: and since it is often difficult to determine whether the narrator’s voice aligns itself with or detaches itself from (and if so. in other cases readers do not know whether they are allowed an insight into the heart of the matter. only Booth’s “Jane Austen” walks through the rooms of Barton Cottage or in the Mansfield Park grounds. we find that we cannot ‘catch’ Jane Austen in her novels. Readers can rely on no stable evaluative centre. one interpretation from another: for on the one hand. . the reader is left without a firm evaluative ground to stand on. and which an individual is likely to share with others’) and ‘mind style’ (covering ‘those aspects of world views which are primarily personal and cognitive in origin’. and at the same time it posits access to ‘the real Jane Austen’ as impossible.Jane Austen’s Narrators 35 (unless the definition is circular). even “Jane Austen” goes into hiding behind her reflectors. Mudrick 1952) set naive ‘first impressions’ against a more sophisticated reading of the novels. and so 29 Drawing on Fowler’s definition of ‘mind style’. or a silence. promoted by the narrative structure itself. by proving that a chance word. Without an explicit narratological theory. openly or covertly conniving with the (other) characters. linguistic knowledge. and literary expectations cannot unravel one discourse from another. Austen tricks us into believing that certain evaluative comments are more reliable than others. because she is simply not there to be caught. and if certain evaluative comments are presented as more authoritative than others. whenever readers’ expectations are frustrated. Elena Semino distinguishes between ‘ideological point of view’ (a term she uses ‘to capture those aspects of world views that are social. silently watching. while on the other. can contain a bigger grain of truth than a long ‘authorized’ speech. particularly on the part of women. explanation for these silent strategies: ‘The close of the eighteenth century saw the convergence of two conservative reactions which. however. unless these characters were explicitly condemned by the narrator and by poetic justice. it may not be very material. does complete truth belong to any human disclosure. primarily for reader involvement and for conveying a theory of language. Her novels promise complete disclosures which do not disclose everything. (E 391) 30 Janis P. seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised. very seldom. and reactions to those notions. Jane Austen created narrative machines which still produce epistemological uncertainty. as in this case. describes the novelistic tendencies of Austen’s time in such a manner as to give an alternative. and though it would be anachronistic to fashion a ‘postmodern’. the feelings are not. As a consequence of both impulses. to endorse one opinion and its opposite. There was the general political backlash led by the AntiJacobins against any voice of protest. chosen strategies. we might view Austen’s narrative technique as a masterpiece of prudence – a way to elude and delude the moral scrutinizers of literature. but where. verifiable entity: Seldom. but also with his/her characters. perhaps because in the novels some opinions can at least be attributed to characters. Whether prudence was her motivation or not. which aligned itself against salacious and morally disturbing titles. or tact. leading to its reconstruction as a ‘proper’ vehicle for middle-class expression. it is tempting to believe that she did not believe in truth as an external. is also clear’. those who praised or condemned a novel for its ‘ideas’ or ‘morals’. or ‘decostructionist’ Austen. or supplementary. Thus constructed.30 One is reminded of the exhortation. however. With all this in mind. In the nineteenth century. If one should ask oneself why such secretiveness was necessary.’ . curtailed the expansion of the fiction market. allied together. or at least to see the merits of both and never take sides with excessive vigour. There was also a reaction against the novel genre itself. the 1800s saw the depolemicization (if not the depoliticization) of fiction.36 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques to avoid evaluative commitment. common to all manuals of conversation (and derived from Castiglione’s Cortegiano). and with the premium put on (women’s) silence by Austen’s society: ‘Clearly. critics tended to identify the author not only with his/her narrators. however. Austen’s suppressions were. Anthony Mandal (2007: 38–9). very often at least. Stout (1990: 44) explicitly links Austen’s ‘silent’ narrative strategies with the reticent conversational modes exhibited by some of her (female) characters. That they were at the same time manifestations of culturally imposed notions of appropriateness. one could perhaps have a look at Jane Austen’s letters (that portion of her letters we are allowed to read): they are even more reticent than the novels. ‘poststructuralist’. and whether she was a fully conscious artist or Henry James’s unconscious craftsman. though the conduct is mistaken. her novels have at the same time invited and baffled evaluative analysis for almost two centuries. or a little mistaken. and to transfer some of their prerogatives to a variety of reflectors. though they are employed in a light. either in her letters or elsewhere. however. This impression is both grounded and false. that Austen’s use of narrative devices is not unfailingly progressive. but by showing that what a novel imitates is far less important than its technical “forms of expression”’ (Honan 1987: 144). because the same tricks are mastered more and more fully. she reverts to the narrative habits displayed two or three novels before: in P. Northanger Abbey In NA. It is interesting to note. the only documents we can access are the novels themselves: and based on the evidence of the novels. because NA already contains the narratological germs of MP and E. Austen progressively extends that web of ‘evaluative opacity’ which. as if after the complexities of MP and E the author needed a breath of fresh air. . false. and MP and E are more complex narratologically. In certain cases. the author also employed the same techniques in all her novels. if we want to study the development of her narrative technique. and bear little or no resemblance to the simple mechanisms of NA. both invites and frustrates interpretation. Chapter 1). explicit narratorial control. playful context. Jane Austen joined the debate over the moral value of novels not by theorizing. It is grounded. the narrators learn to shift from a ‘positive’ to a ‘negative’ mode. to undermine their own authoritativeness by being reticent and unreliable. Unlike the modernists. a plunge into the clearer waters of the Steventon novels. many of the narrative techniques which will be adopted in later novels are already in use. In MP and E. Therefore. for instance (and to a certain extent in the unfinished S). because there was no coherent and deeply based theory of fiction to inspire new artistic developments of the genre or to defend it against its moralistic attackers. the reflectors’ voices become virtually indistinguishable from the narrators’. In the interests of evaluative opacity. and with a  As Park Honan writes: ‘The English novel with few exceptions was degenerate in the 1790s. as has been seen (cf.Chapter 2 The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques A general description of Austen’s narrative technique may give rise to the impression that besides describing the same social set. the effect of evaluative opacity is mostly abandoned in favour of open. Austen left us very little in the way of explicit theory. accomplishment. genius. She had neither beauty.38 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques certain degree of youthful inconsistency. In this form of ‘factual irony’. in spite of her entreating him to have done’ (NA 69).. uses the pseudo-gothic story of Catherine Morland as a parodic foil for the absurdities of gothic fiction (as seen in Chapter 1. because the reader is to follow Catherine in her misreadings. and will learn to discriminate before the end). From the evaluative point of view. they set off immediately as fast as they could walk. The parodic inception of the novel is declared at the beginning and resumed in the ‘result’ and ‘coda’ (having a man falling in love with her out of gratitude ‘is a new circumstance in romance. (NA 73) On the good-bad axis.. NA displays a very simple structure: the narrator. but Miss Thorpe’s real motives are transparent. in pursuit of the two young men. NA 240).. his/her evaluative position remains apparent: when Thorpe clumsily courts Catherine. the evaluative force always conveyed by irony springs from ‘a marked disparity between what is said and the situation’ (Black 2006: 110). and therefore. not least because her protestations are ironically set against her actions. for instance. and sincerely attached to her . Allen was one of that numerous class of females. Allen . . and dreadfully derogatory of an heroine’s dignity’. feelings and motives are usually explained. I acknowledge. two sets of characters are identified at a very early stage: the Morlands. and while Catherine may be left to her own devices (she has to make evaluative mistakes. nor manner. yet the reader’s judgment is implicitly directed: Catherine had nothing to oppose against such reasoning. and on the moral plane. this evaluative net can only be identified on the intertextual plane). Austen’s celebrated ‘irony’ is mostly present in its traditional rhetorical meaning of ‘semantic reversal’. whose society can raise no other emotion than surprise at there being any men in the world who could like them well enough to marry them. The narrator does not immediately identify Isabella Thorpe as the scheming. (NA 29) Thorpe never finished the simile. Mrs. to shew the independence of Miss Thorpe. the reader certainly is not: It is now expedient to give some description of Mrs. Characters and actions are unambiguously identified as good or bad.. Even when the narrator does not speak his/her mind openly. intelligent or stupid. who is in charge through most of the novel. insidious figure she is. (NA 10) [Catherine’s brother]. the narrator comments that he ‘continued the same kind of delicate flattery. being of a very amiable disposition. while General Tilney is bad and the Thorpes are bad and disreputable. The narrator apparently remains silent. and her resolution of humbling the sex. Henry and Miss Tilney are good and respectable. for it could hardly have been a proper one. (NA 28) In NA. her son.—‘dear Anne and dear Maria’ must immediately be made sharers in their felicity. and two ‘dears’ at once before the name of Isabella were not more than that beloved child had now well earned. one may well regard him/her as a character. the narrator has to switch from the ‘narratorial’ to the ‘reflector’ mode. but I hope it was no more than in a slight slumber . she knew not how to reconcile two such different accounts of the same thing. the narrator’s judgments are never refuted. Thorpe. not likely to produce animosities between the brothers. He cannot be the instigator of the three villains in horsemen’s great coats. in NA..The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 39 Sometimes this kind of irony is signaled by hyperbole.. his admiration of her was not of a very dangerous kind. The anticipation is given as typical of the gothic genre. When Catherine is invited to Northanger Abbey. with tears of joy. however.. the narrator always functions in the ‘positive’ mode: he/she knows everything about the characters’ thoughts and feelings. Her false ‘romantic’ interpretations of reality are of course exposed for what they are: but in order to make them at least initially plausible. Her heart was overflowing with tenderness. though its gothic implications will of course be cancelled or qualified. The mock-gothic atmosphere of the novel. embraced her daughter. her literary tastes combine with the atmosphere of the place to inspire her with gothic excitement and fear. Morland the high commendation of being one of the finest fellows in the world. nor to know to how many idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will lead’. for she had not been brought up to understand the propensities of a rattle. He not only bestowed on Mr. John himself was no skulker in joy. and could have embraced half the inhabitants of Bath with satisfaction. While Catherine’s gothic and personal evaluations are disproved by facts and corrected by the narrator (‘Catherine listened with astonishment. is the immovable primum mobile of evaluation.. or not. but one cannot help thinking him/her a very assured one. It was ‘dear John. whatever might be our heroine’s opinion of [General Tilney]. Whether he/she chooses to provide his/her interpretation at any stage of the narrative. which will drive off with incredible speed’ (NA 95). NA 17–18). or evokes ‘my heroine’.. her visitor. the story is told with Catherine as a reflector: readers are constantly reminded that they are viewing the action from NA contains one of the two examples of ‘prolepsis’ to be found in Austen’s fiction: ‘From the latter circumstance it may be presumed that. NA 46). cannot be ascertained. nor persecutions to the lady.. but swore off many sentences in his praise.  . When the narrator says ‘I’.’. occasions the adoption of a technique which will be put to a different use in S&S. as to dream of him . and when he/she plays his/her intertextual games with his/her readers. that interpretation is never presented as less than authoritative: the narrator. Through Chapters V–IX of Volume II. as well as about past and future events. (NA 89) Apart from a few inconsistent remarks in the ‘negative’ mode (‘whether [Catherine] thought of [Henry] so much . as when James Morland’s letter arrives containing the news that his engagement with Isabella Thorpe received his father’s stamp of approval: Mrs. by whom she will hereafter be forced into a traveling-chaise and four.’ and ‘dear Catherine’ at every word. she must ere long be released. But after engaging in this type of struggle. NA 122. The plot suddenly turns upon itself and this centripetal thrust excludes the reader from any subsequent involvement. or wanton cruelty—was yet to be unravelled. after the family were in bed. and probably of her other children. This exclusion may last a few pages or entire chapters only to be reopened again. which confirmed her in feeling’. is that the narrator never endorses his/her reflector’s suppositions. a logical interpretation. The suddenness of her reputed illness. the narrator informs us that ‘The visions of romance were over. the absence of her daughter. which ends up destabilizing the narrator-reader relationship: ‘The reader cannot passively accept everything the narrator says. There must be some deeper cause: something was to be done which could be done only while the household slept. while the narrator occasionally peeps out to remind them that he/she has not completely relinquished his/her control over the narrative (‘Thus wisely fortifying her mind’. In the case of NA. quite arbitrarily. (NA 138)  The shift from one mode of narration to another is more abruptly and arbitrarily managed here than elsewhere. even when narrator and reflector are conflated from the linguistic point of view. was the conclusion which necessarily followed. by stupid pamphlets. Catherine must function. at the time—all favoured the supposition of her imprisonment. at some other point in the narrative. it was at least better than a death unfairly hastened. the struggle. ‘He listened to his father in silence. In order to make the gothic sub-plot convincing. the narrator negates the very existence of the reader. It is a kind of ‘irony’ which is used consistently in Austen’s oeuvre. nor the magnificent compliment. or dialectic commences when the narrator tries to convince the reader of the “reality” of a certain situation. could win Catherine from thinking. shut up for causes unknown. ‘The General was flattered by her looks of surprize’. that some very different object must occasion so serious a delay of proper repose. Nick de Marco has registered dissatisfaction with the capricious mutability of narratorial reticence in NA. it is the narrator who regains control over the story.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 40 her mental perspective (‘Miss Tilney’s manners and Henry’s smile soon did away some of her unpleasant feelings’. ‘she felt utterly unworthy’. Catherine was completely awakened’ (NA 146): and with Catherine’s awakening. as. that he/she is fixing a sardonic gaze on her. Shocking as was the idea. ‘she doubted’. Thus. . was not very likely. and attempted not any defence. though. NA 112–13). at least on the grammatical plane. though never as unambiguously as in NA – the irony stemming from a discrepancy between the views of character and narrator (Black 2006: 110): But neither the business alleged. as a mimetic reflector – free indirect thought linking her discourse and point of view with the narrator’s. ironic remark to the effect that the narrator hasn’t really forgotten the reader after all’ (de Marco 1994: 75). firstly because the reader shares a different point of view from that of the narrator. At the end of these four Chapters in reflector mode. Tilney yet lived. and the probability that Mrs. 130). and receiving from the pitiless hands of her husband a nightly supply of coarse food. supported by the narrator’s initial and pervasive ‘strong evaluations’ of the conventions of gothic.—Its origin—jealousy perhaps. by a cool. To be kept up for hours. in the natural course of things. This evaluative net is woven into completion in the ‘coda’. by her conduct. and its naïveté is all the more significant.—and who still sought the constitutional safeguard of a flannel waistcoat! (S&S 333) Sensibility. and to counteract. one also finds that the most recent editor of Sense and Sensibility. his description ‘reflects the first appearance of the hero in Ann Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho’ (S&S xxvii). who informs us about the moral qualities and financial situation of the two branches of the Dashwood family (S&S 1–5). for vast stretches of the novel the narratorial voice is as ‘positive’. for it implies little awareness of the fact that Willoughby is first of all a stereotype in contemporary popular fiction. Nevertheless. her most favourite maxims. when the narrator points a ‘female Quixotic’ moral that was already implicit in the beginning: Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. her sorrows. whom. she was everything but prudent’. voluntarily to give her hand to another!—and that other. When Marianne first meets him in  According to Beatrice Battaglia. two years before. therefore. One example of reticence is provided by the introduction of Willoughby into the plot: the halfhearted villain which captivates Marianne’s sensitive heart is not openly evaluated by the narrator. could have no moderation . but eager in every thing. M. Without recognizing this fact. S&S 4–5). the reflector technique is used more consistently and more eclectically. and reflects the narrator’s evaluative position on Marianne’s ‘excesses’ (she is ‘sensible and clever. and as strongly evaluative as its counterpart in NA: as seen in Chapter 1.  On the intertextual plane. the orientation is conducted by the narrator. because. no accurate reading of S&S is possible which does not discriminate between the narrator and the author (Battaglia 1983: 47–88). Willoughby is initially presented as a hero. She was born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as at seventeen. we cannot properly measure the extent and quality of Jane Austen’s operation of rewriting’ (Battaglia 2002: 41). This seems to be very naive praise. . Doody.. Sometimes the narratorial voice disappears behind the brains and voices of the characters. Beatrice Battaglia has recently pointed out that a critical awareness of this intertextual level is perhaps less widespread than could be expected or desirable: ‘Occasionally. she had considered too old to be married. a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former attachment. is praised for her remarkable insight in observing that the first apparition of Willoughby reflects the scene in which the hero of The Mysteries of Udolpho appears for the first time. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions. after Marianne’s capitulation to sense. her joys.A. the theme of ‘sensibility’. while on other occasions it abstains from giving full information or drawing conclusions.. as omniscient. no less than the two heroines. is openly condemned or laughed at by the narrator – but the narrator is not the only evaluative source in S&S. The opening also introduces the ‘main topic’ of the novel. and with no sentiment superior to strong esteem and lively friendship.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 41 Sense and Sensibility In S&S. as Margaret Anne Doody reminds us in her introduction to S&S. so that there remains an uncertainty as to whether he is the villain or the hero – until his actions prove him bad. which was uncommonly handsome. and knows. Here [Lucy] took out her handkerchief. he apologized for his intrusion by relating its cause. the narrator does not explain why Elinor should feel compassionate when Lucy takes out her handkerchief. ugly. but pretends she does not.42 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques her distress. extreme imprudence. while the second logical gap triggers more than just one implicature. before Willoughby’s real nature and intentions are disclosed. the gratitude and kindness of Mrs. Another form of evaluative reticence is less narratological than pragmatic. a strategy is inaugurated which will be perfected in the Chawton novels: the narrator appears to comment on a stretch of dialogue. that his person. (S&S 115) Elinor could only smile. received additional charms from his voice and expression. readers will generally have to rely on Elinor’s impressions to confirm or dispel their own uneasiness at his excessive sensibility. that there is a strong attachment between her fiancé and Elinor): Elinor cannot feel very compassionate about her rival’s sufferings – but additional implicatures suggest that Lucy may be feigning her sorrow. or exploits. John Dashwood: the latter has been speaking at some length of his financial difficulties. the obvious implicature is that he is being either very disingenuous or very stupid. but Elinor did not feel very compassionate. beauty. and while the eyes of both were fixed on him with an evident wonder and a secret admiration which equally sprung from his appearance. obvious. that Elinor thinks or knows that she is a fake. and Elinor has been answering him in as condescending a tone as she can muster. or one of the twin maxims of quantity (‘Make your contribution as informative as is required’ and ‘Do not make your contribution more informative than is required’): readers are thus left to work out the implicatures for themselves. (S&S 197) In the first passage. and elegance. Dashwood would have been secured by any act of attention to her child. Given the financial difficulties she has been plunged into by his lack of generosity. gave an interest to the action which came home to her feelings. and inconstant behaviour. he is seen through the reflecting eyes of Elinor and her mother: Elinor and her mother rose up in amazement at their entrance. and when he carries the injured young lady inside the house. implicature. In S&S. nor why Elinor does not feel as she perhaps should: the first. but the influence of youth. The narrator breaches. . or that the narrator is telling us that she is a fake. he is merely defined as a ‘gentleman’. the maxim of relation (‘be relevant’). The second excerpt is taken from a conversation between Elinor and his half-brother. but he/she does so in a somewhat un-cooperative manner (Grice 1967/1991). Had he been even old. is that Lucy is crying. in a manner so frank and so graceful. and vulgar. This narratorial comment interrupts a conversational battle fought by Lucy and Elinor for Edward Ferrars (Lucy is engaged with him. (S&S 36) In what follows. S&S 5). we see things from her point of view (‘Elinor saw. other things he said too. and it is tempting to transform ‘them’ into ‘us’. he seemed resolved to be gone when his enjoyment among his friends was at the height.  . He valued their kindness beyond any thing.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 43 Unlike NA. That point of view remains central throughout. Whereas in Austen’s mockgothic experiment the reflector mode had been used for the purposes of a partial and momentary suspension of disbelief. Never had any week passed so quickly—he could hardly believe it to be gone. The main reflector is of course Elinor/sense: from a very early stage. ‘he seemed resolved’). In the negative mode. but as if he were bent only on self-mortification. readers are accustomed to Elinor being at least the deictic centre of the action. in spite of their wishes and his own. In these cases. which marked the turn of his feelings and gave the lie to his actions. he detested being in town. in which the narrator’s evaluating eye is felt even when it is not overtly presiding over the proceedings. He said so repeatedly. but either to Norland or to London. Whereas in NA there had been a clear evaluative detachment between Catherine and the narrator. (S&S 86–7) The narratorial mode is ‘negative’: the narrator remains outside Edward Ferrars. Chapter XIX). he must go. there is no telling whether this description is made from a narratorial position or through a reflector: by now. during the last two or three days. His spirits. the excess of her sister’s sensibility’. Elinor placed all that was astonishing in this way of acting to his mother’s account. if he/she told us that Edward is engaged with Lucy Steele. He had no pleasure at Norland. and to read all the passage as a long stretch of free indirect thought (containing Edward’s discourse in the form of free indirect speech). here Elinor’s voice and the narrator’s are sometimes indistinguishable: Edward remained a week at the cottage. go he must. makes conjectures about his motives and real feelings (‘as if he were bent only on self-mortification’. in S&S the technique is more pervasive and organic to the description of a social reality. Cortazzi and Jin 2000: 114–16). It is interesting to note that S&S contains two ‘sub-fictions’. and without any restraint on his time. though a deeper plunge into Elinor’s consciousness takes place when serious trouble with Edward Ferrars looms ahead (Volume I. it is the tellers who are evaluated through their stories (cf. our reading would change completely. and it is Elinor who functions as hearer and evaluator. two stories told by Colonel Brandon (178–84) and Willoughby (278–90). he was earnestly pressed by Mrs. with concern. Yet he must leave them at the end of the week. and his greatest happiness was in being with them. S&S is conducted by a fluctuating narrator who alternates between control and withdrawal – and the main form of narratorial withdrawal is conflation with a character’s voice. were greatly improved—he grew more and more partial to the house and the environs—never spoke of going away without a sigh—declared his time to be wholly disengaged—even doubted to what place he should go when he left them—but still. Dashwood to stay longer. stiled Willoughby. and no character can be thoroughly unsympathetic who possesses some of the qualities of a narrator. with comparatively rich husbands). though comparatively poor. which the others had reasonably forfeited by their shameless want of taste. truth was less violently outraged than usually happens’?). as Margaret. must be in want of a wife’. Another striking development is that the angle of vision is occasionally shifted from Elinor to other characters.. in having the advantage of height. the Dashwood family at large.. Of their personal charms he had not required a second interview to be convinced. Her form. was more striking. and she felt a respect for him. mutual affection. though not so correct as her sister’s. that Marianne/sensibility and the rakish Willoughby are perceived by many readers to be at least as attractive as Elinor or Colonel Brandon. that a single man in possession of a good fortune. The caesura is evident from the very first chapter. or that Marianne’s face is ‘so lovely.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 44 In this novel. and domestic comfort of the family to whom accident had now introduced him. Mrs Dashwood. interrupted only by very brief narratorial ‘stage-directions’ and comments (‘Mr. called at the cottage early the next morning to make his personal inquiries . that when in the common cant of praise she was called a beautiful girl. regular features. these techniques are mixed in a different blend to tell the story of how three of the five Bennet sisters came to be married (two of them. Marianne was still handsomer. and a remarkably pretty figure. The narrator provides a very brief. P&P 1). Pride and Prejudice Though the same set of narrative techniques is used in P&P as in S&S. By sharing his/her evaluative privileges with these characters (who is it that thinks that the other listeners have ‘reasonably forfeited’ Marianne’s musical respect ‘by their shameless want of taste’. that when in the common cant of praise she was called a beautiful girl. . (S&S 39) It is perhaps also due to these stretches of reflector narrative. Miss Dashwood had a delicate complexion. including Marianne. Bennet made no answer’. Jane Austen starts perfecting the reflector technique she had learned to use in NA. was estimable when contrasted against the horrible insensibility of the others. and even Willoughby: Colonel Brandon alone. truth was less violently outraged than usually happens. followed by a dramatic ‘set-piece’ featuring Mr and Mrs Bennet. the narrator confers on them some of his/her authoritativeness. every thing that passed during the visit. with more elegance than precision. He paid her only the compliment of attention. heard [Marianne] without being in raptures. (S&S 30) Marianne’s preserver. as well as to Jane Austen’s powers of characterization. humorous introduction in the form of a general statement in the present tense (‘It is a truth universally acknowledged. of all the party. tended to assure him of the sense. though it amounted not to that ecstatic delight which alone could sympathize with her own. His pleasure in music. elegance. and her face was so lovely. and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society. A typical example is the introduction of Mr Collins.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 45 ‘This was invitation enough’. Having now a good house and very sufficient income. however. the narrator introduces their warring personalities (‘Mr. however. in Mr Bennet’s words (P&P 48). not too clever to be a valuable neighbour to Mrs. that her sentiments had undergone so material a change. and by his own contributions to a conversational exchange (P&P 49–52): Mr. reserve. (P&P 52–3) The fact that dialogue takes precedence over narratorial discourse.. the dramatic quality of Austen’s narrative art becomes transparent. and immediately gave him to understand. the greatest part of his life having been spent under the guidance of an illiterate and miserly father. And as always happens in Austen’s novels. with a ratio paralleled only in E. P&P 10. P&P 1). the ‘author’ comes out to bid farewell to characters and readers: Elizabeth feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his situation. Throughout the novel. . and caprice . When the final marriage proposal takes place. The narrator provides the usual elements of ‘orientation’. Gay 2002). Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts. and evaluated. as he meant to choose one of the daughters. She was a woman of mean understanding. narrative reports of speech and thought acts are substituted for dialogue. if he found them as handsome and amiable as they were represented by common report. since the period to  Austen’s knowledge of and borrowings from the theatre of her time have only recently been studied in any significant detail (cf.. and when all is said and done. Chapters 4 and 5). the latter is never absent (the Bingley sisters are ‘proud and conceited’. In these two novels (and possibly in the unfinished TW). and uncertain temper’. through a letter of his (P&P 47). characters’ discourses are given precedence. Byrne 2002. The predominance is spatial as well as temporal: dialogue takes up the greatest part of P&P. who is perhaps the most complete fool in Austen’s fiction (cf. at least from the point of view of structural organization. and though he belonged to one of the universities. Bennet’. Lady Lucas is ‘a very good kind of woman. Firstly. Collins was not a sensible man. 12). little information. P&P 3): these evaluative comments. now forced herself to speak. Only at the end of this lively conversational exchange. are offered when readers may already have formed an opinion of the couple through dialogue. without forming at it any useful acquaintance . but these elements are often prefaced by conversational exchanges which speak for themselves. over narratorial comments. he had merely kept the necessary terms. the ‘result’ and the ‘coda’ are conducted by the narrator in the first person. he intended to marry. does not entail that the narrator has no hold over the story and its evaluative net. even though ‘presentation’ often prefaces ‘description’. The following narratorial judgments only come after a couple of Chapters in which Collins has been introduced. and in seeking a reconciliation with the Longbourn family he had a wife in view. sarcastic humour. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters. Darcy’s proposal to Elizabeth. Darcy may be guessed. took care to inform him at first. but answered them very composedly’. they do not know at first that Darcy has a part in marrying Wickham and Lydia. but he actually thought it necessary to turn back and walk with her. that she still was occasionally nervous and invariably silly. as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure. though perhaps it was lucky for her husband. (P&P 295) Secondly. as seen above. the narrator’s mirror is not always pointed towards the heroine. and to prevent its ever happening again. Austen continues to experiment with the reflector technique. who might not have relished domestic felicity in so unusual a form. The happiness which this reply produced. suspense) is created by using the ‘central intelligence’ (James 1953: 299–300) of Elizabeth as a mimetic reflector at crucial moments. was such as he had probably never felt before. are soon betrayed. that it was a favourite haunt of hers. P&P 126 – the focus is outside as well as inside Elizabeth). though sometimes we are reminded that our vision is not invariably confined to hers (when questioned by Lady Catherine.—How it could occur a second time therefore was very odd!—Yet it did. As in S&S. and even a third. (P&P 280) Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. or a voluntary penance. for the sake of her family. I wish I could say. widening its application to include other characters. Mr Bennet ‘had rather hoped that all his wife’s views on the stranger would be disappointed’ (P&P 8). unexpectedly meet Mr. (P&P 140) Elizabeth becomes the narrator’s reflector from a very early stage.46 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques which he alluded. amiable.—She felt all the perverseness of the mischance that should bring him where no one else was brought. and there remains an unsolved mystery as to how Lady Catherine comes to know that her nephew is in matrimonial danger (Sutherland 1999: 17–22). With what delighted pride she afterwards visited Mrs. The reader. and therefore to inform the reader or keep him/her in the dark: Mr Collins’s motives. thereby limiting the reader’s perspective to hers. As in S&S. ‘Elizabeth felt all the impertinence of her questions. However. and if in the previous novel . Bingley and talked of Mrs. the narrator reserves the right for him/herself to move at his/her pleasure in and out of his/her characters’ minds and lives. and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do. crucial information is withheld for the sake of the ‘interest principle’: readers may expect. produced so happy an effect as to make her a sensible. his present assurances. that the accomplishment of her earnest desire in the establishment of so many of her children. well-informed woman for the rest of her life. A great deal of ‘interest’ (or. Darcy. but are not explicitly prepared for. can be better than she is at unravelling the mystery of Darcy’s behaviour (as well as at unravelling narratorial discourse from free indirect thought): More than once did Elizabeth in her ramble within the Park. It seemed like wilful ill-nature. however. for on these occasions it was not merely a few formal enquiries and an awkward pause and then away. Bingley was good looking and gentlemanlike.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 47 the Dashwood women. till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity. handsome features. and being unworthy to be compared with his friend. ‘gentlemanlike’. Bingley had soon made himself acquainted with all the principal people in the room. What a contrast between him and his friend! (P&P 6–7) Here. with an air of decided fashion’) – makes for a conflation of the narrator’s and the characters’ perspectives. in P&P the technique assumes even more democratic. ‘fine women. ‘conversational’ exclamation mark in ‘What a contrast between him and his friend!’. Mr. he was lively and unreserved. with the whole party. and not all his large estate in Derbyshire could then save him from having a most forbidding. but his friend Mr. and talked of giving one himself at Netherfield. the ladies declared he was much handsomer than Mr. merely looked the gentleman. the point of view is located within this collective intelligence by the insistence on mental processes (‘he was looked at’. however. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine. was angry that the ball closed so early. tall person. the ‘negative’ narrative technique – dealing only with appearances and not with essences (‘good looking’. Hurst. Edmund. to be above his company. the Crawfords). the central intelligence is a collective one – the narrator ventriloquizing the words and thoughts of the whole party assembled for the ball. had briefly functioned as reflectors. functioning as senser. ‘he was discovered to be proud’). Edward Ferrars. and above being pleased. underlines the distance between the narrator’s voice and this particular reflector. of his having ten thousand a year. Fanny) are less attractive than the less virtuous ones (Marianne. In the moral framework of such novels as S&S and MP. ‘till his manners gave a disgust’. Bingley. After an ambiguous beginning. and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance. In P&P. and even Willoughby. and the narrator’s wavering non-committal attitude leaves free room for opposing interpretations which uphold or subvert the social order. His brother-in-law. he had a pleasing countenance. no such aesthetic ambiguities exist: the good are not necessarily boring (Elizabeth certainly is not). danced every dance. with an air of decided fashion. ‘the ladies’). the potential villains are discovered . as does the emphatic. ‘countenance’. Mr. for he was discovered to be proud. and he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening. there is a fundamental ambiguity whose origin is probably aesthetic: the virtuous characters (Elinor. ‘manners’. unaffected manners. His sisters were fine women. Willoughby. or sections of it (‘The gentlemen’. and easy. signalling that there may be a difference between the narrator’s and general opinion – or at least that the general opinion is not simplistically endorsed by the narrator. The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man. Such amiable qualities must speak for themselves. with the collective ‘actor’ usually kept distinct from the grammatical ‘subject’ by passivization. The pattern of transitivity. As usual. if ironical. disagreeable countenance. features: Mr. Another marker of detachment is the epistemic ambiguity in the use of the modal verb ‘must’ in ‘Such amiable qualities must speak for themselves’. noble mien. or even S&S – some uncertainties rather reminding the reader of the ‘experimental’ fluctuations of NA: ‘Your Club would be better fitted for an Invalid. intended as the distance between character and narrator.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 48 to be good at heart (Darcy). an ineradicable source of evaluative ambiguity remains. (TW 261) To say that Emma was not flattered by Lord Osborne’s visit. though the tone is much more sombre. (TW 279) She was now so ‘delighted to see dear. and this is why she can function as a reflector from the very beginning (Austen’s narrators employ the reflector mode more thoroughly and consistently when their reflectors are in an ‘estranged’ situation. And it is in the uncharacteristically frank (and bitter) opening conversation that the situation of the Watson women. or who is better and who is worse. uncomplicated world of Elizabeth Bennet. and the absolute necessity of marriage as a financial remedy to their poverty. E. As in the previous novel. e. Chapter 5). while ‘The Watsons inhabited a village about three miles distant. though the narrator does not renounce his/her evaluative role. ‘Irony’. ‘if you did not keep it up so late’. we are only told by the narrator that ‘The Edward’s were people of fortune who lived in the Town and kept their coach’. The ‘inexperienced’ Emma Watson. rooted as it is in the narrator’s refusal to commit him/herself to a definitive position (or. At the start. and to describe a very odd young lady. Emma has just come back to her family after living for a number of years with a widowed aunt (who has unwisely married again). S&S and P&P. However. fact and fiction. is immediately introduced and presented by means of dialogue rather than narration. in a gothic Abbey or away from home). dialogue mostly takes precedence over the narrator’s discourse. Jane Austen insists on the same fortunate narrative vein of P&P. As in NA. saying and meaning. Nonetheless.—This was an old grievance. who becomes the narrator’s reflector from a very early stage. and can rejoice in the final (mild) distribution of punishments and rewards.. to one single definitive position) and to endorse the views of a character or a group of characters.’ said Mrs. dear Emma’ that she could hardly speak a word in a minute. She is at the same time an integral part of the Watson household and a stranger. would be to assert a very unlikely thing. The Watsons In TW. Readers are in no doubt as to who is good and who is bad. are discussed at some length between Emma and her eldest sister (cf. the narrator sometimes ‘positively’ peeps from behind or above her heroine to judge her or to reveal what she ‘really’ thinks or feels. it is interesting to note that the narrator’s hand is much less firm here than it is in P&P. and even the ominously-named Wickham turns out to be ridiculous rather than truly evil. (TW 280) . is the rule even in the light. were poor and had no close carriage’ (TW 253) – no moral or psychological description is offered.g. sparkling. Judging from this personal beginning. At the beginning. or at least more complex. the narrator assumes a strongly evaluative position. no such single perspective is provided. at least at certain strategic stages (‘orientation’. the fact that certain events or feelings are conjectured at rather than exposed alerts us to the presence of a ‘negative’ narrator. one could be inclined to guess that the narrator will Mary Lascelles wrote as early as 1937 that ‘In Mansfield Park Jane Austen’s style develops a new faculty.. he/she assumes him/herself as a ‘deictic centre’ for the action. Mansfield Park E is usually held to be the greatest narrative (and evaluative) mystery among Austen’s novels: but MP is. and ‘coda’). Whereas this kind of narratorial inconsistency is a constant in all of Austen’s oeuvre. As readers.  . (TW 270) Of the pain of such feelings. we are encouraged to invest certain privileged voices (the narrator’s. And while it is as likely that Austen would have adjusted her aim as the novel went on. in more than one sense. Elizabeth knew very little. much of the evaluative fuzziness is due to the angle of vision. (TW 269) As Tom Musgrave was seen no more. ‘result’. or juster reason saved her from such mortification— (TW 277) In the first three quotations.—her simpler Mind.. and of wishing for more attention than she bestowed. we may suppose his plan to have succeeded. here it seems less a matter of technique than of confusion. and we have to make sense of a multiplicity of perspectives. [The] habits of expression of the characters impress themselves on the narrative style of the episodes in which they are involved. and Margaret is not particularly happy to see Emma). almost invariably centred on Emma herself: in MP. In E. out of one perceptible in all her novels – a faculty I can only describe as chameleon-like . the reflector’s) with an extra degree of authoritativeness: but if we read deeper into the novel’s structure. and gave him probably the novel sensation of doubting his own influence.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 49 Emma’s curtsey in reply must have struck him as very unlike the encouraging warmth he had been used to receive from her Sisters. the narrator is functioning in the ‘positive’ mode: he/she knows everything about the past (‘This was an old grievance’) and the characters’ feelings (Emma is flattered. Apparently. an even deeper. as he/she informs us that the marriage between Miss Maria Ward of Huntingdon and Sir Thomas Bertram of Mansfield Park took place ‘About thirty years ago’ (MP 3). In the other passages. this confusion (together with the bitterness permeating many conversational interactions) might be one of the reasons why TW was never completed. and on the description of their situations’ (Lascelles 1937: 76–7). mystery. we have to admit that authoritativeness does not always coincide with credibility. We have to wait until the coda if we want to hear the narrator’s definitive opinion about the characters and the deeds and misdeeds they have performed: Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery.e. and that Edmund is in love with Mary Crawford. In part. but she thought it a very bad exchange. however. though here and there his/her voice makes itself heard. he should think it right to attend Mrs. while Mr. impatient to restore every body. Poorer than Elinor Dashwood and shyer than Anne Elliot. the narrator recedes into the background by identifying with a reflector – and one providing a particularly limited angle of vision at that. the narrator is very aloof and reticent. These two very important facts are not openly commented on until a much later stage. and the two families parted again. might she have gone in uninvited and unnoticed to hear the harp. is imposed upon the reader when the calamitous event takes place which makes Edmund and Mary’s marriage impossible: the reader only learns about Henry Crawford’s elopement with Maria Bertram when Fanny is informed about it. and Fanny never admits that she is in love with Edmund until Mary Crawford is defeated and her cousin’s affection secured. discounts this possibility by providing an ‘orientation’ which. even in her thoughts. (MP 52) This passage marks the beginning of the reflector narrative. The very first Chapter.50 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques be more present than ever in the story and in its evaluative net. and to have done with all the rest. Even when a narratorial voice is . I quit such odious subjects as soon as I can. not greatly in fault themselves. is very poor in moral and psychological details (cf. though very informative on the financial and social planes. Chapter 3). Crawford was devoted to the ladies of the park. she scarcely allows herself any comments. the use of a reflector is not the only strategy employed by the narrator to hide him/herself. she would gladly have been there too. and not see more of the sort of fault which he had already observed. neither could she wonder. Grant and her sister to come home. (MP 362) Between the initial ‘deictic’ self-betrayal and the coda. and of which she was almost always reminded by a something of the same nature whenever she was in her company. but so it was. Fanny Price is the most complete outsider in the whole set of Austen’s heroines: having been intimidated from a very early age by her uncle Bertram’s dignified manners and her aunt Norris’s humiliating demeanour. Readers are therefore presented with a ‘negative’ account of events that they have to interpret for themselves: Fanny could not wonder that Edmund was at the parsonage every morning. As in the previous novel. and if Edmund were not there to mix the wine and water for her. A similar limitation. factual rather than psychological. that Fanny is in love with Edmund. would rather go without it than not. She was a little surprised that he could spend so many hours with Miss Crawford. that when the evening stroll was over. and it already contains two unspoken psychological facts which Fanny vaguely grasps but cannot or does not want to make explicit – i.. (MP 16) Mrs Norris. the daughter twenty thousand pounds’ (MP 32). the Crawfords. Immediately afterwards. are initially described as ‘young people of fortune. bringing the values of a new fashionable world to bear on the old values of the landed gentry. In every thing but disposition. and he needed a little recollection before he could say . Mrs Rushworth is said to be ‘well-meaning. but little or no evaluative work is done by the narrator in advance. and taking place in the Rushworths’ family chapel. pompous’ (MP 60) – a mixture of good and bad qualities which gives us an idea of her personality but not of her position on the ethical axis (psychologically ‘mixed’ characters abound in the Chawton novels. that Julia and Maria Bertram are battling for Henry Crawford’s attention. A very good example is the multiple interaction at the heart of Volume I. they should be entirely deficient in the less common acquirements of self-knowledge. civil. The son had a good estate in Norfolk. [as ought] to have convinced the gentleman that he ought to keep longer away.’. a fortnight of sufficient leisure in the intervals of shooting and sleeping. and humility.. Readers are usually given all the necessary details for evaluation. the fascinating outsiders who break into the peaceful but flawed paradise of Mansfield Park. Apart from these financial details. and of reflecting to what the indulgence of his idle vanity was tending.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 51 clearly presiding. We understand. had he been more in the habit of examining his own motives. Fanny coloured and looked at Edmund. then . generosity. Norris assisted to form her nieces’ minds.. ‘provided she could marry well’ (MP 33). The only characters who elicit open evaluations are Mrs Norris and the Bertram sisters: Such were the counsels by which Mrs. the narrator tells us that ‘For a few moments she was unanswered. When Mary speaks disrespectfully of the Church of England. and Mr Rushworth. thoughtless and selfish from prosperity and bad example. and that Fanny is secretly jealous. the narrator only tells us that Mary’s object is marriage. The others are either presented without evaluation or evaluated in mixed tones. but are not told. even if Maria is going to be married to Mr Rushworth. (MP 91) The narrator is similarly reticent when he/she describes events and in the comments he/she intersperses the dialogue with. prosing. the opinions it expresses are generally rather guarded. Edmund. but. Chapter IX. they were admirably taught. and it is not very wonderful that with all their promising talents and early information. and many pages have to be turned before he/she openly comments on Henry’s moral character: .. he would not look beyond the present moment. Even Henry and Mary Crawford. Chapters 4 and 5). Maria and Julia Bertram. that Edmund is in love with Mary Crawford. featuring Fanny Price. who look ‘exactly as if the ceremony were going to be performed’: Henry accepts the invitation to have fun at Maria’s expense. Julia and Maria are the only characters who never receive a kind word from the narrator.. Julia directs Henry’s attention towards her sister and Mr Rushworth. but felt too angry for speech. cf. the Bertram sisters. the dissemination of point of view. When they finally get out of the chapel. and all seemed to feel that they had been there long enough. in P&P. so infamously tyrannical as Sir Thomas. there are few happy faces around: The chapel was soon afterwards left to the silence and stillness which reigned in it with few interruptions throughout the year. on a minor scale. Her mastery is at its most evident in the collective scene of Volume II. and he might be thankful to his fair daughter Julia that Mr. Yates think it wiser to let him pursue his own way. A double game of cards is played which involves all the main characters and allows for a number of deft shifts:10 Julia Prewitt Brown has written that ‘Mansfield Park is without a “narrator” as we have understood the term – in the narrator’s place is a collective consciousness. Chapter VII. and feel the folly of it without opposition. Julia. is not to be defeated. an “ethos” that is the effect of the event on the group’ (Brown 1979: 81). Mary Crawford. Mrs Norris. (MP 69–70) In the whole passage. the narrator’s comments can be construed as breaching the maxim of quantity. He had known many disagreeable fathers before. feelings and motives can be guessed at. or is there a measure of jealousy in her anger? Is Mary Crawford ‘aghast’ at her own gaffe. they are not explicitly stated or explained. Mr. the multiplication of reflectors.  . the combination of all the intelligences that collect around an event. The focus is generally on Fanny.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 52 resumes courting her. Austen can use the reflector technique with such ease that she can move the mirror at her will from one character to another. 10 A recent development in (cognitive) stylistics. however. but it occasionally shifts on Edmund. and often been struck with the inconveniences they occasioned. (MP 150) By now. which made Mr. He was not a man to be endured but for his children’s sake. Is the pious Fanny merely indignant. Rushworth and Maria are quite ready’). ‘deictic shift theory’ (cf. there was a something in Sir Thomas. or at the novel idea of Edmund becoming a clergyman? Why should Julia’s comments so displease Maria? Another factor of evaluative dilution in MP is. Sir Thomas. as already in S&S and. Stockwell 2002: 78–9). provides very rewarding analytical methods for such eclectic passages. displeased with her sister. led the way. and even the very marginal Yates: . and drops another hint about her sister’s imminent marriage by complaining that Edmund is not yet ordained (‘How unlucky that you are not ordained. so unintelligibly moral. had he seen one of that class. but never in the whole course of his life. Though each character’s thoughts. when they sat round the same table. Yates did yet mean to stay a few days longer under his roof. Miss Bertram looks ‘aghast’ at the news that Edmund is to be a clergyman.. Miss Bertram. Here the technique is brought to new heights of complexity and flexibility.. All the agreeable of [Mary’s] speculation was over for that hour. and Mrs Norris.11 More eclectically than in S&S or P&P. clear and simple enough: the old moral and religious values of the landed gentry are threatened by internal as well as external forces. is far from opaque. In MP. From the narratological/evaluative point of view. no matter how odious or inscrutable to modern sensibilities. however. there is also no doubt that this interpretation does not exhaust the novel – other perspectives are given. Edmund. On the other hand. with all her talents and quickwittedness .. more than any other novel of Austen’s. even reproachful. Mary. the ‘point’ of E is only confused by 11 As William H.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 53 Fanny’s eyes were turned on Crawford for a moment with an expression more than grave. who becomes the prime upholder of those values. could be expected to make’.. the ‘authoritative’ voice of the narrator speaks (or is silent) in a myriad ways. (MP 191–7) The evaluative pattern of MP is. in a sense. E is simpler than MP. The ‘point’ of MP is so complicated that there almost seems to be no point to the novel. Emma E has always been considered the most complex of Austen’s novels. . our reading of the novel is not double.. but multiple. and she was glad to find it necessary to come to a conclusion and to refresh her spirits by a change of place and neighbour. Fanny’s last feeling in the visit was of disappointment. the most ‘modern’. ‘Mansfield Park. As yet Sir Thomas had seen nothing to remark in Mr. It was time to have done with cards if sermons prevailed. are just as obvious today as they were to readers such as Walter Scott’. especially in the Manichaean struggle to which the narrative is continually pegged.. and the playful soft breezes blow. the one whose ‘sum of delights’ widens at every reading. just as it is surely ‘sunnier’ and ‘more playful’ in tone and setting (Margaret Oliphant wrote in 1870 that ‘in Emma the sun shines. Southam 1968: 224). in a sense. ‘the peculiar difficulty of the novel overall . .. however. and the heroine herself. other ‘points’ are tenable. as I have pointed out in a 2002 essay comparing E with Ishiguro’s An Artist of the Floating World (Morini 2002). It is. or ‘modernist’ novel written by Austen. Crawford’s behaviour. Sir Thomas. whereas in E it speaks in Emma’s accents. and even with such unattractive characters as the Bertram sisters. makes such mistakes as only a clever girl .. If there is no doubt that the narrator wishes us to see this ‘point’. and these forces are finally defeated by an outsider (Fanny). Galperin has noted.. Austen creates a narrator who questions his/her own authority by disseminating it in various ways and among various characters: and in the end. depending as it does on how much we identify with Fanny. continually cries out for some acknowledgment that the author and her narrator are not in fact one and the same’ (Galperin 2003: 171). The repositories of value in the novel.. and we miss what she is not close enough to see or hear (cf. the camera is always with Emma. Chapter V. and. he had not come to the point..e. The reiteration of mental process clauses constantly reminds the readers that Emma’s eyes. and to the reader’s mistake in following Emma and crediting (to a greater or lesser degree) her interpretations of fictional reality. Volume I.. but through the filter of her eyes: The event had every promise of happiness for [Emma’s] friend. (E 82) Except when the narrator qualifies Emma’s thoughts as such (‘Emma felt the glory’). E 52–9). Zunshine 2007) have stressed Austen’s complexity of ‘mental embedment’ (Zunshine 2007: 279). Chapter XV). and there was some satisfaction in considering with what self-denying. Emma felt the glory of having schemed successfully.. and in the end things are made clearer (but not absolutely clear) when Emma’s psychological mists disperse. but nothing serious. there is no telling whether Emma or the narrator 12 Recent cognitive accounts of the novels (Butte 2004. other little gallantries and allusions had been dropt. for half a minute. Emma is identified as the central intelligence of the novel from the very beginning of the action. and are therefore spoken in the narrator’s voice. another way of putting it is that she is almost constantly a ‘mimetic’ reflector of the action: The lovers were standing together at one of the windows. As Wayne Booth pointed out almost half a century ago. these are given in the free indirect form. At balls and on all other collective occasions. most delightful. In a sense. about the wrongness and eventual correction of her psychological interpretations... in which she and her friendship with Harriet Smith are discussed by Mr Knightley and Mrs Weston.’. Emma can be read as a novel about Emma’s ‘Theory of Mind’ (Zunshine 2007: 276–85) – i. easy fortune. He had been most agreeable.. After a very short while. suitable age and pleasant manners. (E 4) Emma is almost always present in the rest of the novel – the only substantial exception being Volume I. ears. Emma is ‘a kind of narrator’ of her own story (Booth 1961: 245). In the first chapter. Grammatically. Emma was more than half in hopes . the narrator’s voice becomes so identified with Emma’s that there is no telling who is saying what. Mr Weston is not presented directly. Mr. but it was a black morning’s work for her. Weston was a man of unexceptionable character. generous friendship she had always wished and promoted the match.12 Much of the evaluative confusion of E is due to Emma’s mistakes. the ways in which she describes her characters in the act of interpreting the mental states of others (including others’ responses to their own mental states – the title of Butte’s monograph is I Know That You Know That I Know) in order to shape their own behaviour. he had told Harriet that he had seen them go by.54 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques the fact that our perspective is Emma’s. and had purposely followed them. But it would not do. . and brains are open (even when duelling with Mr Knightley: ‘Emma knew .. It was most convenient to Emma . It had a most favourable aspect. In both instances. however. and can be seen as such only by an act of imagination or wishful thinking. the narrator refrains from telling us what Mr and Mrs Weston’s thoughts on Emma’s marriage are. some of which are rather easy to get (most readers would understand what Mr Elton is about far earlier than Emma does). who could bring only the freshness of a two years absence. as much as possible. (E 148) In the first example (from Chapter V. (E 36) Certain it was that [Jane Fairfax] was to come. if and when we realize that he/she is playing with information which Emma does not possess: the narrator’s voice. the narrator rarely peeps out of Emma’s reflecting consciousness. instead of welcoming that perfect novelty which had been so long promised it—Mr. but it was not desirable to have them suspected. and why successive readings are so enjoyable to the analytic mind. because the passage seems merely descriptive.’ Part of [Mrs Weston’s] meaning was to conceal some favourite thoughts of her own and Mr. the narrator is having a joke at the reader’s expense. in the second. and the cases in which the narrator is above . when Emma herself understands them. a high degree of implicit evaluation in this description. or the narrator and the reader are jointly laughing behind Emma’s back. or ‘point’. E is structured as a detective novel. the only one outside Emma’s consciousness).The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 55 is telling us that ‘The lovers were standing together at one of the windows’ – apparently a question of minor importance. another. of course. or at a second reading. That is why it is close to impossible to have a clear understanding of the evaluative pattern of E at a first reading. we can only identify the narrator’s opinion. many hints are dropped throughout the novel that become clear at the end.. because Mr Elton and Harriet are not officially ‘lovers’. Throughout E. the narrator does not intervene to fill Emma’s interpretive gaps or to correct her mistakes: nevertheless. whereas others are only explained towards the end of the novel. we could say that the narrator is so blatantly flouting the maxim of quantity that he/she is almost breaching the maxim of quality: ‘. is Frank Churchill’s engagement with Jane Fairfax. In pragmatic terms. I do not recommend matrimony at present to Emma. less evident but in some ways more elusive. is not distinguished from the heroine’s. the narrator seems to be having fun at our expense.. There were wishes at Randalls respecting Emma’s destiny. In passages such as the one quoted above (E 148). It is because Emma and the narrator are so mimetically identified with each other that readers can miss the evaluative content inherent in the use of ‘lovers’: according to the degree of audience perceptiveness. with inspector Emma solving all the riddles just before the end: the major mystery of the novel. Weston’s on the subject. There is also. Frank Churchill—must put up for the present with Jane Fairfax. In both cases. he/she speaks in Emma’s voice to unite two newly introduced characters for no apparent reason. anticipating events we still know nothing about. E is full of these jokes. In a sense. though I mean no slight to the state I assure you. is Mr Knightley’s love for Emma. however. and that Highbury. the narrator also comes out at the end of the novel. the hopes. (E 63) Of course.56 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Emma. the predictions of the small band of true friends who witnessed the ceremony. but it was all confusion. the confidence. (E 391) But.—She said enough to show there need not be despair—and to invite him to say more himself. Generally. when they are not first seen through Emma’s eyes. His manners. (E 440) . however. openly judging her. rich. Emma and Knightley’s amorous exchange is given in summary. are presented either neutrally or in a very prudent tone. who had taken the first hint of it from her. of course. Mrs Bates ‘enjoyed a most uncommon degree of popularity for a woman neither young. even when he/she appears to judge and guide the reader’s judgment. Goddard’s. nor married’. to get a great many more. or see him with clear vision’ (E 99–100). she supposed. as mixtures of good and bad qualities (Mr Elton is ‘a young man living alone without liking it’. the wishes. on being so entreated. She had taken up the idea. and a happy end is offered which is so commonplace as to appear unreal after the narrator’s refutation of ‘complete truth’ as a possibility in life or fiction (E 391): She spoke then. and in the present tense. the narrator comes out of hiding only on those very few occasions when he/she speaks sardonically. must have been unmarked. does so in a very unobtrusive and cautious way – as already seen in MP. E 17). handsome. had written out at least three hundred. In the end. Miss Nash. of certain parallels between his/her fictional world and Austen’s real one: In this age of literature. she is left to work out the consequences of her realization for herself – the narrator leaving all the evaluative work to the reflector (and there are signs that this evaluative work is not done with the complete ruthlessness a detached narrator would exert): How she could have been so deceived!—He protested that he had never thought seriously of Harriet—never! She looked back as well as she could. the ‘result’ and the ‘coda’ find him/her in charge as usual. and Harriet. such collections [of riddles] on a very grand scale are not uncommon. While he/she is evaluatively reticent in the initial ‘orientation’ and throughout the rest of the action. Emma is not judged or criticized. in spite of these deficiencies. and her point of view is always presented as authoritative. however. when Emma herself thinks that he is courting Harriet Smith: the narrator comments that ‘Emma [is] too eager and busy in her own previous conceptions and views to hear him impartially. or she could not have been so misled. head-teacher at Mrs. with Miss Woodhouse’s help. A lady always does. hoped. are even more rare. The narrator. were fully answered in the perfect happiness of the union. Emma’s is for long stretches the only authoritative point of view.—What did she say?—Just what she ought. Most characters. and made every thing bend to it. even when she is forced to acknowledge that Elton has been courting her and not Harriet. (E 121) Since the narrator’s voice is very rarely heard. One such case occurs during Mr Elton’s courtship of Emma. and indeed of the whole of Austen’s fiction (Gay 2002: 166–7). o ritirandosi nella distanza della oggettività dei fatti]’ (Billi 1994: 115). and reader response is always guided. P is closer to S&S and P&P than to the other Chawton novels: but here the tone is cooler and more open. most of the novel is occupied by dialogue and reflector narrative. and in E a character’s voice almost completely subsumes the narrator’s. becomes even more cogent than elsewhere: for in this novel. more than in other novels by Austen. or some overbearing authority of his. Jane Austen has definitively found a way of making the characters act without external interference. as if the narrator were standing back and enjoying the unfolding of the tale. cf.13 In this sense. P becomes ‘the great false step of Austen Style’ (Miller 2003: 68) in all those critical accounts which prize impersonality over ideology. Austen’s narrator. It was transient. this narrating personality. for having watched in vain for some intimation of the interview from the lady herself. non drammatizzata. or retiring in the objective distance of facts [In Persuasion. di volta in volta spingendosi fino a una sorta di identificazione con la soggettività dell’eroina. più che in altri romanzi della Austen. Penny Gay’s theatrical interpretation of Jane Austen’s endings. disguised as ‘Jane Austen’ herself. controlla la risposta del lettore. she determined to mention it. to let Mrs. rather than laughing behind his/her characters’ backs or leaguing with them. been obliged to attend (perhaps for half an hour) to his lectures and restrictions on her designs on Sir Walter. and in the epilogue. is very close to the narrator linguistically and ideologically. Elliot three hours after his being supposed to be out of Bath. by turns identifying itself with the heroine’s subjectivity. the heroine-reflector. and it seemed to her that there was guilt in Mrs. comes on stage to judge the whole action and celebrate the performance that Jane Austen has so carefully orchestrated. (P 183–4) 13 Mirella Billi has written that ‘In Persuasion. controls reader response. but Anne could imagine she read there the consciousness of having. Persuasion P is very distant from E and MP in narratological/evaluative terms. as when she does not guess that there are the makings of an engagement in a conversation between Mrs Clay and Anne’s cousin. questa personalità narrante. Sometimes we are deceived with her as to the meaning of a speech or a gesture.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 57 In E. Clay’s face as she listened. By virtue of the narrator’s controlling presence. in P the narrator resumes the authority he/she has given up elsewhere and tells his/her own story. Clay know that she had been seen with Mr. While in MP many authoritative voices are set up beside and against one another. Chapter 4) – in the sense that though the events are always commented on. which is not dramatized and does not take direct part in the action. Mr Elliot: She only roused herself from the broodings of this restless agitation. by some complication of mutual trick. The narrator’s dominance is only ‘semantic’ and not ‘quantitative’ (Linell 1990. cleared away in an instant. . Anne. non direttamente partecipe. though quite as much as he deserved. that he had been sent to sea. narratorial control is by no means confined to the beginning and the end. and exploits the reflector function to create a small mystery that is soon solved. In a way.. fully intended to settle as soon as he could be properly tempted’ (P 54). He was rich. Shepherd is ‘a civil. Captain Wentworth’s purpose is ‘to marry. to the ‘orientation’. but still he had experience enough of the world to feel. there is no grammatical confusion between narrator and reflector (‘and it seemed to her’. could hardly offer’ (P 26). In P. however. ‘Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman. it is as if Austen had realized that the point of her novels is not what happens. and being turned on shore. is exercised throughout the novel. seldom heard of. The initial orientation is very clear from the evaluative point of view. italics mine). Characters’ thoughts and motives are made explicit and commented on: ‘Sir Walter was not very wise. ‘authorized’ one: The real circumstances of this pathetic piece of family history were. sensible and amiable’ (P 10). the ‘result’ and the ‘coda’. The narrator reserves for him/herself the possibility to move at his/her pleasure among speeches and thoughts. and though the style is ‘negative’. that a more unobjectionable tenant . thus correcting characters and readers on more than one occasion. in this case.58 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques The narrator. hopeless son. Such is the narrator’s control over the events and the characters that towards the end of Chapter IV. she learned romance as she grew older—the natural sequel of an unnatural beginning’ (P 30) – with ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ marking the narrator’s ideological position as regards Anne’s initial refusal of Wentworth and her final recovery and acceptance of his love. though often unobtrusive. that the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome. that he had been very little cared for at any time by his family. two years before. does not set Anne to rights. and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twentieth year. (P 45–6) . Elizabeth is reproved for ‘turning from the society of so deserving a sister [Anne] to bestow her affection on one who ought to have been nothing to her but the object of distant civility [Mrs Clay]’ (P 19). When a character’s point of view differs from the narrator’s in a significant manner. and scarcely at all regretted. prolepsis is used for the second time in all of Austen’s oeuvre: Anne ‘had been forced into prudence in her youth. ‘Anne could imagine’). The narrator’s control. But Anne’s interpretation of reality is presented as hers and hers alone. Mr. cautious lawyer’ (P 15). No extra authoritativeness is given to Anne’s discourse by turning her into a ‘mimetic’ reflector. Even Anne’s feelings are often judged ‘externally’ (‘she truly felt as she said’. when the intelligence of his death abroad had worked its way to Uppercross. the narratorial version is presented as the only true.. All the characters are presented in their moral and psychological traits as well as in their social and financial conditions: ‘Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot’s character’ (P 10). because he was stupid and unmanageable on shore. but how events are told: if that is true – as six novels all unfolding more or less the same fabula in different ways seem to demonstrate – it is no use trying to postpone the disclosure of the final ‘resolution’. P 102. however. (P 203) Sanditon S does not appear to be a new beginning in narratological terms. spatially. says ‘we’. if not ‘I’. winding more obliquely to the Sea. of ‘our best moralists’ (P 85). his/her identity acquires national as well as local and private contours. The narrator always looms behind and towers above the characters.The Development of Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 59 That P is very much the narrator’s story is confirmed by the fact that here as in no other novel. with the narrator extending his/her evaluative net from text to context: [Anne] gloried in being a sailor’s wife. Sir Edward) are exposed for what they are (‘The truth was that Sir Edward had read more sentimental novels than agreed with him. though of course the dimensions of the fragment allow for only a tentative assessment. P is no doubt the one among Austen’s novels which comes closest to providing a historical background. As the narrator becomes a more recognizable figure. S 328). the heroine/outsider/reflector (‘I make no apologies for my Heroine’s vanity’. if possible. Soon. more distinguished in its domestic virtues than in its national importance. Anne learns ‘another lesson. and it is significant that this small-scale romantic story should end on a high patriotic note. The beginning resembles P&P or E rather than P. the protagonist has a vast knowledge. this figure comes out in the open as a character. Mr and Mrs Parker are only presented as ‘A Gentleman and Lady’ (S 295). well-fenced and planted. A branch only. and rich in the Garden. but she must pay the tax of quick alarm for belonging to that profession which is. and psychologically. and we have to turn pages upon pages until we know anything more. though the reflector obviously shares some of his/her views: ‘And whose very snug-looking Place is this?’—said Charlotte. even in the case of Charlotte Heywood. in connection with him/herself: Captain Wentworth’s first meeting with Anne is dated ‘in the summer of 1806’ (P 26). Orchard and Meadows which are the best embellishments of such a Dwelling. and formed at its mouth. a third Habitable Division. with the Napoleonic wars always looming behind the various references to the navy. they passed close by a moderate-sized house. The main topic – the contrast between old and modern times. the Parker brothers. in a small cluster of Fisherman’s Houses. S 320). between the country of the landed gentry and the new promised land of the commercial classes – is mainly presented and evaluated by the narrator. gave a passage to an inconsiderable Stream. as in a sheltered Dip within two miles of the Sea. and often situates the story. The most reprehensible characters in the fragment (Lady Denham. the main evaluative pattern of the novel – as dictated by the narrator – emerges. his/her allegiances also become clearer. just as Austen herself. in the sense that the reader’s evaluative work is not openly guided by the narrator.—The village contained little more . in the art of knowing our own nothingness beyond our own circle’ (P 38–9). temporally. Sir Edward’s great object in life was to be seductive’. of the Valley. ‘moderate’. The presence of Sir Edward points towards the possibility of a sentimental/gothic development in the plot. P. and certainly allows a quantity of bookish parody on the narrator’s part. All in all. Whether she still hoped to be able to publish NA or not. ‘best embellishments’). S seems to mark a return to the narrative technique of NA. All the words connected with the Parkers’ ancestral home have positive connotations (‘sheltered’. and two or three of the best of them were smartened up with a white Curtain and ‘Lodgings to let’— (S 309–10) The narrator’s evaluation is not explicit but easily traceable. ‘rich’. Jane Austen may have seen the possibilities of the old mock-gothic plot in a new context which allowed her to confront a crucial financial and social issue of her day. ‘inconsiderable’ thing. whereas the new seaside town of Sanditon is presented as a poor. but the Spirit of the day had been caught. and initially understands but little of what is going on. observed with delight to Charlotte. containing ‘little more than Cottages’ – the negative construction giving the idea of material paucity. . ‘well-fenced and planted’. as Mr.60 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques than Cottages. The usefulness of comparing S with NA – which was not published in Austen’s lifetime – is confirmed by the parallels between the two plots and thematic structures: a very young heroine visits a place where she is a complete outsider. with the narrator playing with his/her characters and occasionally having a joke at the heroine’s expense. Chapter 3 Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park Evaluation, Style, Choice Evaluation is the ‘slant’ given to a story or a piece of information by the teller or the reporter. It is as pervasive as it is elusive, but when evaluative elements can be isolated, they tell us a lot about the speaker’s, or writer’s, personality and ideology. As Thompson and Hunston write, one of the main uses of evaluation is ‘to express the speaker’s or writer’s opinion, and in doing so to reflect the value system of that person and their community’ (Thompson and Hunston 2000: 6). In this sense, evaluation can be equated with what stylistics calls ‘(ideological) point of view’, or ‘style’. According to such stylisticians as Leech, Short, and Fowler, analyzing a style means distinguishing between a noumenal ‘world as it is’ and the ‘stylistic slant’ added by the author or narrator – i.e., evaluation. Analyzing Austen’s style, of course – especially in such masterpieces of indirection as MP and E – means engaging with the author in a game of epistemic hide-and-seek in which no stylistic fly can be disentangled with absolute certainty from the web of ‘evaluative opacity’. In their seminal and influential Style in Fiction, first published in 1981, G.N. Leech and M.H. Short drew a distinction between monism and dualism in interpreting style. They were fully conscious of the artificial nature of the distinction, yet they were also convinced it provided critics with two different and useful ways of looking at (different) texts. In a monistic view of style, a literary work is written in the only possible manner in which it could have been written, and if it had been written in a different manner it would be a different text; while in a dualistic view, each work contains a certain matter which could have been set down in another slightly different manner. Artificial as it evidently is, the distinction serves to identify and analyze two different classes of texts. The style of Joyce’s Finnegans Wake is sui generis, and can hardly be modified without undergoing a complete alteration, without becoming something else: in this case the full gist of the novel – or whatever Finnegans Wake is – resides in its unique style. The style of Jane Austen’s novels, on the other hand, is characteristic, but can be successfully set against other similar styles, and alternatives may be identified which, if chosen, would not have wholly modified the gist, the content, or the ‘story’ – whatever these are. Prosaically, and approximately, what happens in Finnegans Wake cannot be thought in different words, whereas what happens in E or MP can. Of course, nothing remains exactly the same when an element  They also discussed a third, pluralist view of style, but that lies beyond the scope of this chapter. Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 62 is shifted or altered: the ‘fictional element’, as Leech and Short call it, ‘is only invariant in a special sense; the author is free to order his universe as he wants, but for the purposes of stylistic variation we are only interested in those choices of language which do not involve changes in the fictional universe’ (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 37). It is only in a dualistic epistemic system that the notion of style as choice becomes materially evident. For in such a system, ‘what an author has written’ can be set ‘against the background of what he might have written, had he failed to apply certain transformations, or chosen to apply others instead’ (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 22). Style, therefore, can be calculated and isolated, provided that we are able to deduct what might have been written from what has been written. This view, and this analytical method, postulate the existence of two different semantic dimensions, one in which the text is actualized as it is, and another in which it is stripped of something identifiable as the author’s ‘style’. Leech and Short drew a further distinction, as artificial and as useful as the first, between sense and significance, the latter being the sum of the former plus what they called ‘stylistic value’: Let us use sense to refer to the basic logical, conceptual, paraphrasable meaning, and significance to refer to the total of what is communicated to the world by a given sentence or text ... sense + stylistic value = (total) significance. (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 23) If we take an author’s ‘fictional universe’ (i.e., what is described stripped of the attributes of style) as a fixed, given quantity, we can disentangle the sense from the significance of the author’s words. Sense resides in the fictional universe itself, not as it is evaluated but ‘as it is’; while significance is that world as perceived by all those who participate in it (narrator, characters). Style, or rather ‘stylistic value’, provides a way of looking at a fictional universe, an ‘evaluative’ point of view, and is to be identified with all the colours and impressions which are added and give shape to that universe-in-itself. Of course, the only way of identifying that ‘stylistic value’, and therefore of distinguishing between sense and significance, is accepting that we cannot escape Spitzer’s ‘philological circle’ (Leech and Short 1981/1983: 13): the insights we have are stimulated by (linguistic, stylistic) observation, but observation in turn is guided by our insights as well as by our prejudices. Even though we are trapped in the philological circle, and even though any distinction between sense and significance is bound to be arbitrary (but not random  It is to be noted that the description of this circle as a potential cage is mine alone: Leech and Short are more neutral, and Spitzer writes that the philological circle ‘is not a vicious one; on the contrary, it is the basic operation of the humanities, the Zirkel im Verstehen as Dilthey has termed the discovery, made by the Romantic scholar and theologian Schleiermacher, that cognizance in philosophy is reached not only by the gradual progression from one detail to another detail, but by the anticipation or divination of the whole’ (Spitzer 1948/1962: 19). Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 63 or accidental), there is no doubt that in any literary work of art, and in certain works more than in others, a number of linguistic expressions and constructions are identifiable through which a neutral, pre-stylistic ‘fictional universe’ becomes the author’s, or the narrator’s, world. In literary texts such as Jane Austen’s novels, which work by subtle accumulation of details rather than by sweeping the reader along or constantly disappointing his/her expectations, these ‘stylistic markers’ are perhaps more evident than elsewhere. Though ultimately (i.e., in a monistic system) no narrative brick can be shifted from E or MP as well as from Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, in E or in MP it is easier to isolate the carriers of ‘stylistic value’, to identify ‘consistent structural options [which], agreeing in cutting the presented world to one pattern or another, give rise to an impression of world-view, ... a “mind-style”’ (Fowler 1977: 76). Fowler’s concept of ‘mind-style’ can be applied to single characters, to a narrator, or even to an author-figure stretching across a number of literary works originated by the same person. Living authors like James Joyce create different mind-styles (and therefore different fictional authors) for each work they write, while the mind-style created by the likes of Jane Austen only undergoes small modifications from one novel to another. Elsewhere, Roger Fowler drew a tripartite distinction between psychological, spatio-temporal, and ideological point of view, and identified ‘mind-style’ with the latter (Fowler 1986/1990: 127). From this equation, and from Leech and Short’s separation of ‘sense’ from ‘significance’, we derive the idea of style as an ideological, evaluative quantity, the colours and impressions superimposed on the neutral ‘fictional world’ when it is filtered through a character, a narrator, a (fictional, implied) author. In the traditional view of rhetoric, especially after Ramus’s revolution, style is seen as an ornamental layer added to the irreplaceable kernel (and in this traditional view, translation is always possible because only this ornamental layer is replaced). In the (dualistic) view of modern stylistics, style is still an added layer, but one which gives the fictional world a coating of impressions and opinions, i.e., an ideological dimension. Of course, ‘ideology’ is here intended in its broadest possible sense: not as a system of political beliefs, but as the totality of cultural, social, and personal beliefs brought to bear on a fictional universe. In this broad sense, ideology, evaluation, and style are one and the same thing: the angle from which something is seen. Once ideology, evaluation, and style are conflated, however, a fundamental problem remains: how can evaluative, ideological ‘stylistic markers’ be identified with any certainty? In Linguistic Criticism, Fowler identified two ‘fairly distinct ways’ in which ‘point of view on the ideological plane may be manifested’. On the one hand there are modal expressions, which ‘come from a fairly specialized section of the vocabulary, and are easy to spot’. On the other hand there are other parts of language which are harder to locate, and which convey ‘world-view’ more ‘indirectly but nevertheless convincingly’:  It is of course ultimately impossible to distinguish point of view from ‘point of view’ (Pugliatti 1985: 1–9); but that is one of the ‘dualistic’ abstractions we must accept in order to be able to isolate ‘stylistic value’. foresee. dislike. in fiction. etc. evaluative adjectives and adverbs: lucky. Here the philological circle becomes a tangible prison. however personal. perhaps. But our search. it is not easy to isolate all informationally marked expressions. which will present us with continuities and discontinuities in order to impress its stylistic fabric on our investigating eye. and many others. consciously or unconsciously. luckily. probably. their personalities and attitudes.. In the terms of information theory. and we run the risk of finding nothing that we did not set out looking for. In our analysis of the initial orientation of MP. modal adverbs or sentence adverbs: certainly. guess. ‘Sir Arthur certainly lost his fortune at the gaming table’ and ‘His gambling was disastrous for the family’ .. verbs of knowledge. and their views on the desirability or otherwise of the states of affairs referred to.. etc. will always be dictated by the text we deal with.. or. prediction.. we will suspect that we are in the presence of a relevant stylistic feature. because they can be figuratively represented as small waves disturbing the surface of a calm. We will look for significant elisions and repetitions. and therefore easier to spot. is the grammar of explicit comment. as well as modal expressions. may be symptomatic of world-view: it has traditionally been assumed in stylistics that the different ways people express their thoughts indicate. other parts of language.. The forms of modal expression include: modal auxiliaries .. It is such linguistic wordings.64 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Modality . There is a perhaps even more interesting sense in which language indicates ideology. The modal devices just discussed make explicit (though sometimes ironic) announcements of beliefs. The fictional world of Austen’s country . a choice which evokes a more likely. Chapter 1). believe. Evaluation and Style in the Orientation of Mansfield Park In Jane Austen’s novels.. the means by which people express their degree of commitment to the truth of the propositions they utter.. fortunate. that we will search thoroughly in our quest for style. and we will stop at those points in the narrative when something could have been said in a markedly different manner. oily sea. indirectly but nevertheless convincingly. we will see that Mrs Bertram is pronounced by the narrator to have ‘captivated’ Sir Thomas – where ‘captivated’ is characterized by its improbability in relation with ‘married’. approve. isolating other stylistic-evaluative expressions is harder and inevitably more arbitrary (cf. the world-views of author or characters. generic sentences: these are generalized propositions claiming universal truth and usually cast in a syntax reminiscent of proverbs or scientific laws . regrettably. . we will keep in mind that ‘information-content varies inversely with probability’ (Lyons 1968: 89): whenever we find an unlikely expression. and is therefore informationally marked. (Fowler 1986/1990: 131–2) If modal expressions are more explicit. Respectively. surely. evaluation: seem. normal alternative.. In all of Austen’s novels. however. reverses. we immediately recognize some of those beliefs. subverts. compared with the works written by more rootless. it is never clear how much the single characters or. deadpan. for the very simple reason that it does not exist. It is Austen’s celebrated ‘irony’.’ In the incipit of MP. the narrator endorse the beliefs they represent. Jane Austen’s novels neatly show the connection between style and ideology. that ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged. When we are told that a woman ‘captivates’ a man. Yet. In order to appreciate Austen’s style. except when a single unforeseen epithet. the third marries a good-for-nothing Lieutenant of Marines. an attempt is made in what follows at producing a ‘de-stylized’ version of the incipit. a problem with these stylistic-evaluative markers in Jane Austen’s novels – one which makes them so easy to read on the surface and so difficult to scan in depth: though we can easily recognize many of those markers. that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife’. or distances him/herself from. and therefore at separating sense and significance. the second marries a man of middling fortunes. There is.Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 65 houses is described by her narrators in a quiet voice and in a predictable manner. it will add to our understanding of Austen’s style to accept and verify that it cannot be fixed. the three sisters are severed. the story of a family (the general ‘orientation’ of the novel) is told in about 800 words which are packed with significant stylistic-evaluative markers. When the narrator opens P&P by stating. what we will henceforth call the ‘village voice. as a consequence of this disparity of fate and fortune. 2). And though we can never definitively fix that position. that he/she might be in the presence of a crucial stylistic feature. just as creating an artificial language called ‘Proto-German’ served the purpose of studying the developments of natural languages. because almost any remarkable stylistic feature in E or MP refers us back in a very straightforward manner to the social and cultural beliefs of early nineteenth-century provincial gentry. creating an artificial fictional universe ‘before’ the addition of Austen’s style can tell us something about that style. . family arguments. a noun or a verb strangely misplaced. above all. or what we have termed the ‘evaluative opacity’ of her narrative constructions (cf. ventriloquizes. jolt the reader’s senses awake and warn him/her that something is amiss. a neutral fictional universe from the world as seen and evaluated by the narrator. Also. the problem remains of assessing the evaluative position of the narrator him/herself. cosmopolitan writers. an integral part of that ideology. Chapters 1. It is of course impossible to re-create such a world. the narrator by turns endorses. and then brought together by the practical difficulties of the third – but these markers invest that simple story with a whole consistent world-view. Once this world-view is recognized and made explicit. we may be tempted to take this statement at face value: but the rest of P&P leaves us in doubt as to whether the narrator speaks with. and reconciliation – three sisters marry: the first marries a rich man. The narrator is apparently telling a very simple story of marriages. and more subtly in E and MP. [from principle as well as pride. . of Mansfield Park. as there are pretty women to [deserve] marry them. Miss Ward. at the end of half a dozen years. who was a woman of very tranquil feelings. the substitutional words are in italics (e. would have [contented herself with merely giving up her sister. It was the [natural] result of the [conduct] opinions of each party. She had two sisters [to be benefited] who could profit by her [elevation] marriage. indeed. Price never wrote to her family on the subject till actually married. an absolute breach between the sisters had taken place. or connections. But Miss Frances married. but her husband’s profession was such as no interest could reach. [found herself obliged to be attached to] formed an attachment with the Rev. [when it came to the point. [himself]. he would have been glad to exert for [the advantage of Lady Bertram’s sister] his sister-in-law. the lawyer.g. Miss Ward’s match. and Miss Frances [fared yet worse] found a husband with no fortune at all. The Orientation of Mansfield Park Rewritten About thirty years ago. in the common phrase). and thinking no more of the matter] given up her sister.g. Sir Thomas being happily able to give his friend an income in the living of Mansfield. with all the comforts and consequences of an handsome house and large income. Miss Maria Ward of Huntingdon. to [disoblige] disappoint her family. and by fixing on a Lieutenant of Marines. without education. Austen’s text is underlined when euphemistic or ironic (e. To save herself from [useless remonstrance] criticism.66 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques The re-written text is marked as follows: whenever a ‘de-stylized’ variant is offered. if the neutral. did it very thoroughly. to point out the [folly] wrongness of her conduct. and such of their acquaintance as thought Miss Ward and Miss Frances quite as handsome as Miss Maria. fortune. and a desire of seeing all that were connected with him in [situations of respectability] satisfactory situations. a woman of very tranquil feelings). Austen’s original text is given in square brackets (e. Sir Thomas Bertram had interest. and her uncle. and such as a very [imprudent] unsatisfactory marriage almost always produces. and Mrs. which. Also.g. and Mr. [had the good luck to captivate] married Sir Thomas Bertram. and thought no more of the matter: but Mrs. and written in small capitals when it ventriloquizes the ‘village voice’ (e. Lady Bertram. did not scruple to predict their marrying with almost equal [advantage] satisfaction. All Huntingdon [exclaimed] commented on the [greatness of the] match. Norris began their [career of conjugal felicity] marriage with very little less than a thousand a year. She could hardly have made a more [untoward] unhappy choice. with scarcely any private fortune. with [only] seven thousand pounds. and [to be thereby raised to] acquired the rank of a baronet’s lady. [only]). and before he had time to devise any other method of assisting them.] was [not contemptible] fairly satisfactory. But there certainly are not so many men of large fortune in the world. de-stylized version requires the substitution of textual material.] from a general wish of doing right. a friend of her brother-inlaw. and a temper remarkably easy and indolent. Norris had a spirit of activity. [allowed] declared her to be at least three thousand pounds short of any [equitable] claim to it.g. Mr. which could not be satisfied till she had written a long and angry letter to Fanny. Mrs. married replacing [had the good luck to captivate]). Norris. in the county of Northampton. in the common phrase. [but what could she do?] but how? Was there any chance of his being hereafter useful to Sir Thomas in the concerns of his West Indian property? No situation would be beneath him – or what did Sir Thomas think of Woolwich? or how could a boy be sent out to the East? The letter was not unproductive. as Mrs. such a [superfluity] number of children. Norris should ever have it in her power to tell them. and a very small income to supply their wants. or in the aspects we most readily associate with it (i. (MP 3–5) Stylistic-Evaluative Enquiry: Marriage and Economics If Austen’s incipit is compared with its de-stylized version. and after [bewailing] complaining of the circumstance.. made her eager to regain the friends she had [so carelessly sacrificed] lost. By the end of eleven years. however. Their homes were so distant. Mrs. Her eldest was a boy of ten years old. but marriage is not described in all its aspects. a thematic question immediately meets the eye (is foregrounded. and an answer which comprehended each sister in its bitterness. attraction/repulsion. as could not but dispose them all to a reconciliation. She was preparing for her ninth lying-in. Norris could not possibly keep to herself. but not the less equal to company and good liquor. and Mrs. and bestowed such very disrespectful reflections on the pride of Sir Thomas. love/hate). Price in her turn was injured and angry. we can compare it with the relative reticence of Elizabeth Inchbald’s A Simple Story (1791). an husband disabled for active service.and early nineteenth-century middleclass economy as related to women’s literature. as she now and then did in an angry voice. Mrs. The main topic of these 800 words is marriage.e. a fine spirited fellow who longed to be out in the world. . in a passage which contains in brief a similar story of socially unacceptable marriage:  For a detailed description of late eighteenth. Copeland (1995). Sir Thomas sent friendly advice and professions. and she addressed Lady Bertram in a letter which spoke so much contrition and despondence. cf. affection/disaffection. It re-established peace and kindness. Norris wrote the letters. and [imploring] asking for their countenance as sponsors to the expected child. as almost to preclude the means of ever hearing of each other’s existence during the eleven following years. she [could not conceal] wrote how important she felt they might be to the future maintenance of the eight already in being. or at least to make it very wonderful to Sir Thomas. in stylistic terms). Lady Bertram dispatched money and baby-linen. In order to grasp the exceptionality of such analytic precision. and the circles in which they moved so distinct. and such a want of almost every thing else. A large and still increasing family. Price could no longer [afford to] cherish pride or resentment.Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 67 and [threaten her with] explain to her all its possible ill consequences. or to lose one [connection] tie which might possibly assist her. Its social and financial causes and consequences are openly stated and anatomized. that Fanny had got another child. as if MP were an essay in cultural materialism rather than a novel. that Mrs. put an end to all intercourse between them for a considerable period. there is no doubt that Dorriforth’s displeasure mainly arises from social and financial questions (as we understand by the fact that he has to provide for the child whose existence he deplores).. Miss Milner. as there are pretty women to deserve them’ – where that ‘deserve’. though elsewhere (in MP and other novels) we are reminded that ‘accomplishments’ may also be of importance. destitute of every support but from his uncle’s generosity: but though Dorriforth maintained. whereas the husband is probably a Protestant). and Mrs. But these simplistic ethical considerations are outside the interests of Austen’s narrator.68 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques The child of a once beloved sister. which is conducted by women at the expense of men: the narrator does not simply say. who married a young officer against her brother’s consent. was at the age of three years left an orphan. however. is not a sociologist but a narrator: the dissection of marriage is obtained not through direct description and definition. prizes love over social and financial convenience. actions and feelings will unfold. the parents of the child. whose heart was a receptacle for the unfortunate. as Inchbald’s narrator does. Marriage is described as a hunting campaign. Husbandhunting is an absolute necessity for all those women who are not themselves in possession of a big fortune (and since money passed from male hand to male hand. beauty. apart from money. and took Miss Woodley with her to see the boy . than she longed to behold the innocent inheritor of her guardian’s resentment. no sooner was told the melancholy history of Mr. In MP the tables are turned: sentiment is momentarily erased in order to introduce the material conditions in which the characters’ thoughts. . ‘bewitch’) which share its main semantic content: it is not chosen by chance. and other similar verbs (‘charm’. determined to take young Rushbrook to town and present him to his uncle. as opposed to ‘marry’ or even ‘catch’. What women need in order to catch a big quarry is. who only describes things as they are. but by the subtle insertion of modal expressions or other stylistic markers. Living as most of us do in a society which. ‘enchant’. implies that prettiness is a sufficient quality to obtain money in the form of a husband (once again.. or at any rate the choice is significant in a sentence whose theme and grammatical subject is defined by geographical origin (‘of Huntingdon’) and financial situation (‘with only seven thousand pounds’). Rushbrook. The choice is significant because ‘captivate’ makes us think of ‘captive’. Austen’s speaker. Austen’s narrator adds that ‘there certainly are not so many men of fortune in the world. ‘Captivate’ can be set against ‘fascinate’. But these social and financial questions are covered by a sheen of paternalistic sentimentalism which muddles the matter for all those who are unfamiliar with late eighteenth-century social conventions. not love or affection). we might be tempted to see moral squalor in such a depiction. In the same paragraph. that Miss Maria Ward ‘married’ Sir Thomas Bertram. but that she ‘had the good luck to captivate’ him. (Inchbald 1791/1967: 34) Though in this case confessional differences may also be imputable for the breach (the brother is a Roman Catholic. he would never see him. and what follows is a comparative description of three sisters’ failures and successes in hunting for a quarry. at least superficially. content herself. of course. Marriage is. and tended to close ranks against the newly powerful and nouveaux riches. Maria Ward/Lady Bertram has made a very good match. She has been ‘raised to the rank of a baronet’s lady’ – an ‘elevation’ potentially bringing ‘advantage’ and benefits (‘She had two sisters to be benefited by her elevation’) to other members of the family. and must. What makes a marriage a good ‘match’ is money. a bad match is looked down on as ‘untoward’ and ‘imprudent’. and money. . Finding herself in the impossibility of catching a quarry as big as Sir Bertram. At the other end of the spectrum. in some  Juliet McMaster has written that ‘the gentry and professional classes felt somewhat threatened by the large changes that were coming with the Industrial Revolution. and that is what makes Austen’s mature works. she hunts around for the second best. as Austen’s narrator tactfully reminds us. for she might have ‘fared worse’ – she might have incurred the third sister’s fate. While a good match is looked at as the outcome of ‘luck’ and is ‘exclaimed’ upon by the neighbours. behind the curtains). for she had ‘only seven thousand pounds’ to her name – the modal adverb signalling a disparity between initial and final social position. isn’t considered quite respectable until it has aged a little’ (McMaster 1997: 123). we are reminded in passing that money does not always smell the same. The ‘greatness’ of a match is measured by the social and financial disparity between the parties. Trade represents new money. but finds herself ‘obliged to be attached’ to him. Miss Frances’s choice does not bring any social or financial advantages – the most tangible economic outcome being a ‘superfluity’ of children which does nothing but add to the ‘despondence’ of her situation. and it is not by chance that the sentence which contains ‘situations of respectability’ (as opposed to a more neutral ‘satisfactory situations’) has the baronet as its interpersonal and ideational subject. and a bad career record brings financial hardship and social censure.Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 69 such figures were rare): Miss Ward. the second (but eldest) sister. sheer ‘folly’. whereas an indifferent career brings a continual struggle against the tide of domestic difficulties. the centre of that circle is Sir Bertram. a woman positions herself outside the happy circle within which ‘situations of respectability’ are to be found. for certain social qualities (epitomized in the term ‘respectability’) tend to give it a somewhat better flavour. and there are very few women who can afford not to embark on it. In MP. By choosing the wrong husband. does not merely ‘form an attachment’ with Mr Norris. and the polysemous nature of ‘obliged’ tells us that she must also be thankful. What is the narrator’s position in relation to all this? We cannot tell with absolute certainty. the unmoving primum mobile of this small genteel world: all the other social and financial positions are evaluated by his standards. though here as elsewhere. A brilliant career brings social respect and admiration (and envy. an occasion for ‘remonstrance’ and threats (Mrs Norris writes to her sister to ‘threaten her with all its possible ill consequences’). like wine. is obliged to. a ‘career’ (Mr and Mrs Norris begin their ‘career of conjugal felicity with very little less than a thousand a year’). ready for the reader’s inspection. Also. each of the two rejections is based on the assumption that there is a social and economic disparity which is never openly stated (Cf.70 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques respects. can never be complete. for some of these characters are tactless. not the narrator’s. who in turn rejects Miss Smith. By choosing to present marriage as it were on a dissecting table. those facts and those exchanges cast a revealing light on the narrator’s aloofness. or disapproval.  Though certain contemporary prose writers have managed to make their ‘negative’ narrators as indecipherable as possible. Caroline Austen wrote that ‘They were very well expressed. all the evaluative colouring appears to be delegated to the selection of facts and speeches. like so many detective novels. of course. For one thing.  It is interesting to compare the author’s narrative and epistolary styles. and that ‘Miss Frances married. the narrator prefers not to speak in his/her own voice – which does not tell us what his/her position is. condescension. Thus. the narrator is breaching a social norm he/she knows very well. Since the narrator does not give us clear indications as to his/her evaluative position. it is hard to say – shows through the cracks of impassivity. it is only with the unfolding of the plot that we can infer something about the general ideological (and ethical) framework of the novel. and a wry smile – whether of mirth. When we read that ‘All Huntingdon exclaimed on the greatness of the match’. but leaves us groping in the dark for a clear evaluation of what we are told. in the common phrase. we can go back to the beginning and understand things we had not been told openly in the first place. Of Austen’s letters. . That aloofness. the selection of ‘stylistic markers’ is. Chapter 4) speak as her narrators do: in E. in this initial orientation there are a couple of passages in which the narrator seems to distance him/herself from the ideological world he/she is presenting to us. when the eponymous heroine rejects Mr Elton. however. and where. far from neutral. Chapter 6). After the first reading. as a consequence. we hear the village voice. his/her approval or disapproval of this or that character/behaviour/situation. the narrator breaches a social convention which made it distasteful and tactless to speak openly of financial matters. and they must have been very interesting to those who received them — but they detailed chiefly home and family events: and she seldom committed herself even to an opinion — so that to strangers they could be no transcript of her mind — they would not feel that they knew her any the better for having read them’ (La Faye 1989: 249). in order to show what lies behind the curtain of ‘social respectability’. At two crucial points in the narrative. Though the narrator tends to remain aloof from the facts he/she narrates and the conversational exchanges he/ she reports. We should remind ourselves that Austen’s characters never (or almost never. in MP as elsewhere. where the most advantageous and the most disadvantageous matches are described. to disoblige her family’. cf. Many of Carver’s short stories can be mentioned as narrative creations whose style seems to reside in the absence of style. and these are supplemented by the occurrence of ‘maintenance’. there are three occurrences each for ‘fortune’ and ‘income’. and lexical items belonging to the same semantic area.Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 71 Style and Cohesion A comparison between Austen’s incipit and its de-stylized version makes the theme of marriage as a social and economic institution stand out in bold relief: but pointing out what is foregrounded is by no means the only way of discovering what a text or a portion of text is about. The theme can also be identified by tracing the lexical nets innervating the text. on two more occasions. Collocation. After noticing how lexical items can function much as grammatical ties in making a text cohesive. and ‘property’. the study of lexical cohesion leads us to the same conclusions as the study of ‘foregrounded’ evaluative stylistic markers. but by their paradigmatic relations with other words on the semantic level. by the use of different forms of the same root. and on the other end what the two scholars call ‘collocation’. In the field of ‘social matters’. and all these words belong to semantic fields which we could define as ‘financial matters’ and ‘social matters’. near-synonyms. ‘concerns’. is defined not so much by the syntagmatic company words keep. or by the accretion of synonyms. While the word ‘marriage’ appears only once (and is arguably substituted. . As far as money is concerned. as actualized by word repetition. but that ‘collocation’ here means ‘semantic nearness’ is made evident both by the word-chains used as examples (mountaineering/ Yosemite/summit peaks/climb/ridge) and by the recapitulatory table for lexical cohesion: Type of lexical cohesion: Referential relation: I. two occurrences for ‘pounds’. Halliday and Hasan grade these cohesive lexical items according to their degree of differentiation from one another. as well as ‘rank’. by ‘elevation’ and above all ‘career of conjugal felicity’). there are words or different forms of the same root that are repeated up to three times. ‘respectability’. while the actual word appears only once. Halliday and Hasan shrink from classifying ‘the various meaning relations that are involved’ (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 287). as defined by Halliday and Hasan in Cohesion in English. All these phenomena belong to the field of ‘lexical cohesion’. ‘career’. in this case. Collocation (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 288) In the three paragraphs making up the incipit under discussion. and ‘interest’ (the personal relationship that one can exploit in order to further one’s or someone else’s career). ‘connections’ features alongside ‘connected’ and ‘connection’. thus creating a scale which displays on one end sheer repetition. Reiteration (a) same word (repetition) (i) same referent (b) synonym (or near-synonym) (ii) inclusive (c) superordinate (iii) exclusive (d) general word (iv) unrelated II. ‘profession’. of the unfortunate sister’s daughter and the privileged sister’s son. lexical items related to the semantic field of sentiment (‘love’. because Edmund is a younger son. It re-established peace and kindness. rather than the reverse.  Fanny works her way into the society of Mansfield Park by endorsing its values: comparing her to the model woman of her day. ‘attraction’.e. reversed and completed at the end of the novel by the marriage of Fanny and Edmund. i. by telling the story of three sisters who start from roughly the same situation (lower-upper-middle class upbringing – as Orwell would say. Her ‘good luck’ is underlined by the surprised reactions of her uncle and her community. Fanny will belong to that section of society (termed ‘pseudo-gentry’ by the historian David Spring [Spring 1983]) which is attached to. Sir Thomas sent friendly advice and professions. and Mrs. but not identifiable with. It is a perfect tripartite symmetry. As a clergyman’s wife. she is dependent. Mary Poovey finds her ‘outwardly everything a textbook proper lady should be. self-effacing. good looks) but find themselves. It comes at the end of the passage. . It is interesting to note how it seems to be this very symmetry – and the different positions held in society by the three sisters – that shapes their individual characters. The only reference to sentiments akin to love is to ‘peace and kindness’. Lady Bertram dispatched money and baby-linen. Orwell 1937/1997: 113) – some money but not a lot. Lady Bertram does not simply acquire a title. In spite of this textbook perfection. ‘affection’.) are virtually absent. whose comments show that ‘elevation’ is perceived  Peter W. however.72 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques It is to be noted that most of these lexical items are directly connected with the theme of marriage. etc. This is the effect of the narrator first giving us a detailed account of material conditions. and apparently free of impermissible desires’ (Poovey 1984: 212. the landed gentry. Stylistic Symmetry: A Tale of Three Sisters MP begins like a fairy-tale or a parable.. and as such will not inherit his father’s estate. but is ‘raised to the rank of a baronet’s lady’. with very different game in their bag. Fanny’s climb does not reach the social peak where Lady Bertram roosts. As a result of her ability to ‘captivate’ Sir Thomas. By contrast. in Austen’s quasisociological style. cf. and then introducing the characters themselves. at the end of their husband-hunting period. Graham provides an interesting ‘Darwinian’ interpretation of this family history (Graham 2008: 71–6). This tripartite symmetry is realized in the initial orientation by the insertion of stylistic-evaluative markers which immediately sprawl the three sisters on their respective hierarchical social pins. in the sense that they are used either to denote or to define the pursuit of a husband or the married state. also Chapters 4 and 5). and is put into perspective by all that has been said so far and by the narrator’s catalogue of how the two more fortunate sisters and Sir Bertram materially express that kindness and celebrate that peace: The letter was not unproductive. Norris wrote the letters. Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 73 as a small breach in the fabric of society, to be marvelled at but also justified (her uncle allows her ‘to be at least three thousand pounds short of any equitable claim to it’). In Austen’s world, those who seek to better their position, by marriage or other means, are looked down upon as social climbers. On the other hand, when the climb reaches the summit, the breach mends itself by its own consequences – the panacea of ‘rank’ applying the plaster of admiration to the wound of envy. The other two sisters fare worse than Lady Bertram, and differently from one another. The eldest sister finds herself ‘obliged to be attached’ to the Reverend Mr Norris – a fact and an expression which, as we have seen, tell us a lot about the condition of early nineteenth-century women. By fixing on a relatively poor parson, Mrs Norris is enrolled, or remains, in the middle ranks of society, or in the lower ranks of country gentry, only a step higher than Miss Bates in E: her match is described as ‘not contemptible’, a litotes indicating the short distance between her fate and Mrs Price’s. The marriage with the passionless Rev. Norris is described as a ‘career of conjugal felicity’, where ‘career’ suggests hard labour, and ‘felicity’ a more domestic feeling than ‘happiness’ would perhaps entail. Mrs Norris’s mean and self-centred temperament is suited to (or a consequence of) her married and, later, widowed condition: a woman in her position has to struggle if she does not want to be socially relegated, and one needs money and leisure in order to be disinterested and open-minded. Mrs Norris’s liminal social condition is further underlined by a cohesive element of ‘comparative reference’ (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 39) ‘evaluatively’ linking her plight with Mrs Price’s. The third sister is said to have ‘fared yet worse’ than Mrs Norris, thus implying that if Mrs Price’s marriage is a downfall, Mrs Norris’s is not very far from being contemptible. In Mrs Price we can observe the fate awaiting all (gentle)women who make an ‘imprudent marriage’, an ‘untoward choice’, who marry ‘to disoblige [their] family’. ‘Disoblige’ is once again an element of cohesion with Mrs Norris’s story (Mrs Norris has been ‘obliged’ to marry a man, also in order to ‘oblige’ those social norms which are embodied in the familial institution). The choice is ‘untoward’, i.e., ‘unfortunate’, but also ‘unforeseen’ and ‘unseemly’. It breaches the master law of bourgeois behaviour, i.e., prudence. As a consequence of her imprudence and ‘folly’, Mrs Price is cast out from the family, or is at least forced, by her relatives as well as by the circumstances, to humiliate herself in order to be included again after having preemptively excluded herself. The terms in which the ‘reconciliation’ of the three sisters is described leave us in no doubt that it is only financial factors, and not sororal affection, that lead Mrs Price to make the first move: she can ‘no longer afford to cherish pride or resentment’, because she is saddled with ‘a large and still increasing family’ and ‘an husband disabled for active service, but not the less equal to company and good liquor’. She needs help, but she is in no position to ask for it, and must beg for it (‘imploring’). With a masterstroke of ventriloquism, the narrator incorporates into his/her discourse a stretch of a letter from Mrs Price, where a modal verb is used for the sake of understatement, but presented to the reader as an indicator of how desperate the sender must be (‘she could not conceal how important she felt they might be’). 74 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques As observed in the previous sections, the narrator’s position is not openly stated, and readers must largely rely, to place their sympathies and antipathies, on the juxtaposition of facts. There are, of course, the stylistic-evaluative markers I have bracketed to show us how the dominant social ideology influences characters’ actions: and there are some euphemistic expressions (which I have underlined) whose surface meaning is disproved or reversed by their co-text, and whose deep, ironical meaning casts the light of opinion on the darkness of events. These expressions are apportioned to all three sisters, reflecting their social positions and their temperaments. Lady Bertram is said to be ‘a woman of very tranquil feelings, and a temper remarkably easy and indolent’ – where the negative connotations of ‘indolent’ are counterbalanced by the positive aura of ‘tranquil’ and ‘easy’. When we learn, however, that she would have ‘contented herself with merely giving up her sister, and thinking no more of the matter’, we begin to suspect that her tranquillity, easiness and indolence are not as harmless as they might appear. We are faced with something akin to Wordsworth’s ‘savage torpor’ – a passivity which is actively capable of hurting others. As for Mrs Norris, we are told that she has a spirit of ‘activity’ – but in the course of a few lines (she writes ‘a long and angry letter to Fanny, to point out the folly of her conduct, and threaten her with all its possible ill consequences’), we understand that it is an alacrity in hurting others, in putting people in their place and reminding them of their mistakes (she will soon act as self-appointed censor for the young Fanny Price). She receives from her fallen sister a letter containing ‘such very disrespectful reflections on the pride of Sir Thomas, as Mrs Norris could not possibly keep to herself’ – and at this stage, though no open evaluation of her character has been provided by the narrator, we can see her on her way to Mansfield Park, gloating on each passage of a letter she is holding in her hand. As to Mrs Price, we are euphemistically informed by the narrator of how her financial difficulties compel her to humiliate herself in front of the very people she has every reason to hate. After eleven years she can no longer ‘afford to cherish pride or resentment’, and is ‘eager to regain the friends she had so carelessly sacrificed’. The letter she addresses to Lady Bertram is full of ‘contrition and despondence’ – and it is obviously the latter that induces the former, just as it is the fact that she can no longer afford to cherish pride and resentment that makes her eager to regain her ‘friends’. Once all these euphemistic expressions are decoded, very few doubts remain about the motives of the ‘reconciliation’ and the quality of the ‘peace’ of which Fanny’s arrival at Mansfield Park is a sort of tangible symbol. Conclusion: Slovenliness Exploited In a famous essay on ‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946), George Orwell complains that the English of his time is becoming imprecise and slovenly, its speakers (and above all its writers) mostly unable to express their thoughts clearly through its words. In his opinion, ‘prose consists less and less of words chosen for Narrative Opacity in Mansfield Park 75 the sake of their meaning, and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house’; locked in this prefabricated building, the user ‘either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not’ (Orwell 1984: 356). This stylistic decline must have external causes in everyday affairs, but the state of everyday affairs in turn is not made a jot better by the decline of language: Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influences of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that to fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. (Orwell 1984: 354–5) In Orwell’s indignation against sloppy prose we can trace the influence of another commonplace idea: language, for the novelist, is a mirror of thought, and is more or less successful insofar as it expresses thought clearly and distinctly. Though it is of ancient Greek descent, this idea was formulated for English-speaking modernity in the second half of the seventeenth century, by such thinkers as Hobbes, Locke, and the Royal Society affiliates. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that ‘The generall use of Speech, is to transferre our Mentall Discourse, into Verbal; or the Trayne of our Thoughts, into a Trayne of Words’ (Hobbes 1651/1997: 20); John Locke spoke (in the Essay concerning Human Understanding) of ‘the use and force of language as subservient to instruction and knowledge’ (Locke 1690/1877: 10); Thomas Sprat, who in 1668 penned a History of the Royal Society, praised its members for their attempt to come back ‘to the primitive purity, and shortness, when men deliver’d so many things, almost in equal number of words’ (Sprat 1668: 113). For the men of the seventeenth-century epistemic revolution, it was of course prose, more than verse, that had to bear the weight of denotative precision; and the prose genre par excellence, the novel, inherited from the beginning an aspiration to describe the world ‘as it is’. Jane Austen and George Orwell both belong to this tradition, and try to describe what they see by means of the language they have at their disposal. Orwell’s remedy against the slovenliness of language is a disposition to think clearly through language, and if necessary against the grain of contemporary English, by avoiding all those expressions that either do not convey any precise Words like prudence. respectability. Austen’s strategy is different: the language she has at her disposal is as imprecise and slovenly. because it is full of commonplace expressions and of words the meanings of which are not well definable. Austen (or. in Orwell’s sense. her narrator) continues to do so. though their functions can always be inferred on the pragmatic plane. reason.76 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques content or carry the writer astray from what he/she means to write. yet no single word is traceable that commits the writer to the evaluation which the text unmistakably proposes. by avoiding any kind of open confrontation with the ideology of his/her world (and with the linguistic expressions which convey that ideology). judgment. parasitic and critical. as that of Orwell’s contemporaries. . and to catch him/her definitely ‘approving’ or ‘disapproving’ the state of affairs he/she is describing. but surrounds them with a co-text in which they are both explained and unmasked. the narrator of MP alerts us to the real significance of such expressions as ‘respectability’. Instead of refusing to use these words. the initial orientation of MP resembles a report written by a very careful double-dealing spy for his superiors: the text leads its readers to evaluate a situation in a certain manner. are imprecise because they reflect the ideology of a classist male-dominated society that aims at maintaining its privileges while never stating them openly. he/she tells us more about the habits and prejudices of early nineteenth-century country gentry than a whole battery of sociological papers ever could. By first detailing the material conditions in which the events take place (and by means of the contrast between words and events). ‘untoward’. ‘imprudent’. sense. At the same time. The narrator’s position in his/her ideological and linguistic world is at one and the same time acquiescent and subversive. All in all. ‘career of conjugal felicity’. sensibility. Austen’s narrator maintains a web of ‘evaluative opacity’ which makes it very difficult to identify his/her moral position. and by thus exploiting the tesserae his/her social mosaic is made up of. Part 2 Dialogue . This page has been left blank intentionally . and those principles are inferred from ‘internal’ observation. if not of their actual behaviour. Even those works of art which do not offer a direct representation of society have at least an indirect link with the context they spring from – and Jane Austen is a realistic novelist writing about the sector of society it was her portion in life to know. give us a fair idea of how people were expected to behave in polite society. form a recognizable set almost universally acknowledged as valid – those who stand outside the rules being labelled by the other characters or by the narrator as arrogant.Chapter 4 Jane Austen’s Dialogue Reality and Fiction Conversation in Jane Austen’s novels is a complex role-playing game. what can be said openly and what must be hinted at or implied. an internal perspective can be adopted: observing characters’ behaviour in Austenland can help the critic draw a list of requirements for the perfect speaker. in order to study conversation in Austenland we can look at how conversation worked in Austen’s world. The various manuals devoted to the ‘art of conversation’ which appeared in the eighteenth century and before. When one studies novels – or any other work of art – this external point of view is guaranteed by the fact that no human product can be created in perfect isolation. and then the abilities of each individual speaker can be gauged against this yardstick. The main quarrel was between an aristocratic model (symbolized by Lord Chesterfield. this chapter does not contain a discussion of the eighteenth-century conflict between different models of conversation. as opposed to  For the sake of brevity. The formal quality of these manuals. (relatively) poor women have to marry well or die socially. Though such a procedure can yield results which satisfy the scholar’s as well as the reader’s common sense. nonetheless. in England and abroad (particularly in France).  As announced in the Introduction. I distinguish here between Austen’s world (the world in which the authoress lived) and Austenland (the world of her characters). we must look at how conversation was supposed to work rather than at how it actually worked. if one observes the novels in their varied but consistent whole. which moves and acts are allowed and which are not. in her novels. or foolish. These rules. whose scandalous letters . just as we can look at the material conditions of life in Austen’s time to understand why. Since we have no reliable transcriptions of everyday talk in Austen’s time. an evident circularity in such an approach: the novels are judged on the sole authority of the principles they convey. There is. the rules of which are dictated by general consensus about what can and cannot be said. an external point of view would be welcome from which those internal observations can be verified. In order to identify this set of rules and the narrative purposes it serves. Therefore. boorish. and feeble thought”’ (Anon. passim) on how novels came to be used as conversation guides. or utter your words indistinctly. and articulate every word distinctly’ (Trusler 1775: 30–32). may be applied with equal propriety to conversation. The author of The Accomplished Youth also stresses the connection between oral and written dialogue: ‘The first thing you should attend to is.. concerning written compositions.  Lord Chesterfield urges his son to ‘Be careful then of your style upon all occasions. and. in case you read too fast. Dr. hypocrisy and sincerity. and to observe how people of fashion speak. if not always. Take care to open your teeth when you read or speak. whatever the distance between real and ideal behaviour. This is not all. a good way ‘to acquire a graceful utterance. there seems good reason to doubt whether Jane Austen’s contemporaries really spoke with the sureness and economy of effect which characterize the speech of even her foolish and vulgar figures . lay a wrong emphasis. one sees at one and the same time the predictive power of the rules and the significance of the exceptions.. conversation in Austen’s time was supposed to be a formal. the result of embarrassed. The author of an 1821 Essay on Conversation observes that ‘what can be said by . Here.  As Norman Page wrote in 1972. written dialogue is the result of a controlled and modified selection from the features of living speech: the uncertainties and misdirections of actual “talk” are distilled into a concentration of effects that justifies their appearance in the very different medium of print and their perception through the eye rather than the ear’ (Page 1972: 116–17).. to read the best authors with attention. and the best method of attaining to that. even in common conversation or the most familiar letters’. well-ordered business. obscure. to speak whatever language you do speak. normalized) and real speech. You may even read aloud to yourself. do not observe the proper stops. Cf. ‘Recent investigations into spontaneous speech suggest that it is altogether freer and looser. 1811: 196). for we must never offend against grammar. is no insurmountable problem.’ (Anon. are generally. study for the best words and best expressions. Blair. If one measures these conversational rules against conversational behaviour in Austen’s novels. nor make use of words which are not really words. “Embarrassed. Furthermore. 1821: 23).. even when it is based on observation rather than literary convention. and can be expected to mediate between opposing views – are used indifferently to identify a ‘golden mean’ of conversational behaviour. . in the manuals. between ‘honest dissimulation’ and honesty. in its greatest purity. less patterned and organized and more wasteful and repetitive than has often been assumed. we find a constant insistence on conformity between oral and written discourse – as well as on the usefulness of literature as a model for conversation. a number of manuals – which aimed to reach as large an audience as possible. Inevitably. is to read aloud to some friend every day. and you will find your own ear a good corrector.80 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques the supposedly more informal quality of real conversation. is not sufficient: we must speak well. and then ‘digested and methodised’ (and neutralized) again and again by the likes of John Trusler) and a bourgeois model.e. and according to the rules of Grammar.. and feeble sentences. whether you write or speak. and those who express themselves best. Exhaustive accounts of the debate can be found in Gilmour (1981) and Davidson (2004). where such a friend is not at hand. even making allowance for the greater formality that obtained in much of the polite speech of the upper levels of early nineteenthcentury society. is. also Michaelson (2002: 190. and beg of him to set you right. because it parallels the gap between fictional (i. obscure. for not to speak ill. and gradually replaced the manuals themselves. were posthumously published in 1774. idealized. this duplicity has to do with the author’s firm grasp of fictional psychology – with the necessary way in which all turns at talk reflect character and situation. and brilliant exploitation. as well as of realistic origin.. to re-educate the novel reader. or artist . in what manner. Austen’s art is often imitative. as Fanny Burney. If one sets Austen’s dialogue against theirs. and so on – and the advice given in treatises written several centuries earlier’ (Burke 1993: 90–91). that has produced the famous “realism” effect for Austen’s readers . immoral’ (Kelly 2004: 67–8). or close predecessors. As Burke suggests. one immediately notices that her conversations are both more stylized (more formal and controlled) and more plausible (nobody ever says a thing he/she is not expected to say. relatively consistent set of conceptual terms which can be used to systematize the different insights yielded by novels and manuals. to relativize comprehensively the styles and thereby the politics of her contemporary novelists. and England making its contribution in the eighteenth). unethical. On the other hand. insofar as they mirror and observe from above (as behavioural norms) the actions that the manuals try to direct from outside (as behavioural rules). and yet there are conversational surprises). Austen’s political purpose was. where. bad. and Elizabeth Inchbald. unreal. these norms and rules) taken together should help to illuminate the behaviour of fictional characters.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 81 Those branches of linguistics which study spoken interaction – pragmatics. stylistically and therefore politically. It is particularly useful to draw a comparison between Jane Austen and such contemporary colleagues. France ruling the roost in the seventeenth. the impression that Austen’s. about what.. . not other fictions. In his survey of European writings on the art of conversation from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries (Italy inaugurating the genre in the sixteenth century. extravagant. situations and conversations are often drawn from other novels at least as much as from reality: up to NA. theirs seems excessive.. conversation analysis. It is this relativization . Maria Edgeworth. minimalism and irony. the effect is created by Austen’s keen observation. ‘The systematic comparison of the two sets of rules should help to illuminate both’ – and all these rules (or rather. Also. In her early works. one has to remind oneself that it is of literary descent. when. modern theories of language provide a relatively stable. read from her style. and it is by means of parody – a kind of parody involving setting ‘novelistic’ situations against ‘real life’ – that she acquires her style. and.. The well-read Austen has many novelists in mind – from Richardson and Fielding to Radcliffe. ethnomethodology – can also be of use.. and a host of minor practitioners. untrue. must be “realistic” because. On the one hand. through her own stylistic insistence on formal reduction. at the same time.. Of course. novelistic characters belong to a fictional tradition at least as much as they belong to the society they are copied from: when one thinks of Austen’s dialogue. Inchbald.  Gary Kelly turns this critical position on its head: ‘The point about the difference between Austen’s style as a novelist and the enormously diverse styles of her contemporaries is not that Austen is a superior stylist or realist. Peter Burke has noticed ‘the parallels between the cultural rules which ethnographers and linguists try to discover – who communicates with whom. or calling off the attention of the company to any foreign matter’ (Trusler 1775: 34). another garrulous speechmaker is Mr Collins in P&P. In Austenland. The Art of Conversation Turn-Taking and Conversational Roles The allocation of turns in conversation was. An assurance of the characters’ artificial origins seems actually to enhance their mimetic value’. Eighteenth. the impression is created that nothing is allowed to exist without a reason or a relation to the rest: even the random speck of sand becomes grist to the narrative mill.. the anonymous author of The Accomplished Youth exhorted his pupil to ‘Talk often. Austenland is a country where nothing happens by chance: but its creator manages to give it the appearance of chance and naturalness by holding her mirror up to human nature. of the (social. but her infringements are tolerated rather than approved.. Dussinger (1990: 13–14) rightly observes that the intertextual (parodic) inception of many characters is not necessarily at odds with their mimetic plausibility: ‘Although previous scholarship has generally assumed a mimetic model to describe Austen’s characterization. The aesthetic of representation. Unlike the world of everyday life. Fielding wrote that ‘A well-bred man . or can breach them without noticing. interruptions and overlaps are very rare. out of another man’s mouth. As so often with this ineffable creator of literary crystals.  Lord Chesterfield notes that ‘Incessant talkers are very disagreeable companions. even fictional characters most patently rooted in motivations of the plot and contrived for thematic purposes can strike us as psychologically reified beings. Austen displays a perfect knowledge of the rules of polite conversation and a firm grasp of all the exceptions to those rules. psychological) reasons why a certain character in a certain situation can choose to ignore or evade those rules.  John A. fragile composition – the two opposite qualities being somehow interdependent. at least in theory. Lord Chesterfield felt it almost unnecessary to point out what ‘every child knows’. as it were. In his ‘Essay on Conversation’. In other words. but never long’ (Anon. and lengthy speeches are uttered only by characters who are perceived by the others as contravening the social pact (Miss Bates in E is forgiven because she is both helpless and harmless. tends to be a contradictory mixture of the natural and the artificial: the Messein porcelain figurine delights not only by its lifelike resemblance but also by its cold. however. even chance is enrolled at the service of all-seeing providence. this approach has been at odds sometimes with a parodic art that calls attention to literary analogues and deliberately subverts trusting the text.and nineteenth-century conversation manuals warned their readers against the sins of speaking too much and interrupting other speakers.82 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques of the conventions of real speech. that ‘It is a great piece of ill-manners to interrupt any one when speaking. Similarly. an orderly affair in Austen’s world. Every man in company has an equal claim to bear . or to take the words. will not take more of the discourse than falls to his share’ (Fielding 1743: 150). Nothing can be more rude than to engross the conversation to yourself. who is openly or covertly treated like an idiot by most characters). by speaking yourself. 1811: 174). interruptions are seen as serious face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987). In P&P. 59). at present”. In one instance in MP.. in ‘intimate’ more often than in ‘socialising’ contexts (McCarthy 1998: 10). Philips was very thankful for his compliance. with laying oneself open.. Willoughby’s. (NA 29) In this well-ordered social and conversational world. presides. / “If they were one day to be your own. Overlap is even rarer than interruption. and” .. Emma interrupts Mr Elton in her proud. no’ – cried Emma. along with the capacity to know when and how to hold one’s tongue . Quite frequently. Altogether. Mrs Norris dares to interrupt Sir Thomas in her anxiety to avoid personal censure (148).. you would not be justified in what you have done”’... In E. but could not wait for his reason’. (E 334) his part in the conversation’ (Trusler 1775: 95). 120). other-selection is naturally favoured over self-selection in the allocation of turns (cf. laughing as carelessly as she could . Marianne. each interruption marking a moment of comic or dramatic crisis. when there are more than two participants in an interaction. Mr Collins is so unbearable that people cut him short when he embarks on his endless speeches (‘“I know little of the game. that she desires to know what you are all thinking of. Miss Bates said a great deal. said he. and answered good-humouredly. 58).. righteous rage (‘“and the encouragement I received” – / “Encouragement! – I give you encouragement!”’. Mrs. allowable only in particular situations. or they are liable to wound or expose others’ (Winborn 2004: 79).’ Some laughed. Morland and my brother!’ ‘Good heaven! ‘tis James!’ was uttered at the same moment by Catherine. “but I shall be glad to improve myself. represented as it is by a single coreferential instance in NA: . Sacks..‘Delightful! Mr. Schegloff. Knightley’s answer was the most distinct. Those who say too much are liable to be wounded by exposing too much of themselves through their words. I am ordered by Miss Woodhouse (who.).) to say. Over-speech is associated with vulnerability. Colin Winborn writes that ‘Austen prizes the ability to manage one’s words. the close sisterly relationship between Elinor and Marianne makes it possible for each to interrupt the other to scold her or anticipate her words (‘“They will one day be Mr. .Jane Austen’s Dialogue 83 Given this orderly procedure. wherever she is. ‘Is Miss Woodhouse sure that she would like to hear what we are all thinking of?’ ‘Oh! no. for in my situation in life –” Mrs. Austen uses them to underline moments of stress or tension. and Jefferson 1974: 701 ff. Elton swelled at the idea of Miss Woodhouse’s presiding. these cases amount to a dozen in the whole corpus. current speaker directly addresses next speaker or drops hints as to who should or can continue: ‘[Frank Churchill speaking] Ladies and gentlemen. In The Literary Economy of Jane Austen and George Crabbe. Mr. In S&S. A related set of rules establishes who can or should conduct a conversation. Rank. amongst other things. and ‘strategic’ (the authority of those who contribute the most important interventions) (Linell 1990). Chapter 6). Erving Goffman coined the phrase ‘participation framework’ to define the position and status of each interactant: ‘When a word is spoken. The codification of these various positions and the normative specification of appropriate conduct within each provide an essential background for interaction analysis’ (Goffman 1981: 3). Multiple interactions in Austenland (both in ‘socialising’ and ‘intimate’ contexts) often show complex ‘participation frameworks’: when the Dashwood women talk amongst themselves in S&S. and ‘ratified participants who are addressed’. Mrs Dashwood is semantically dominant. Of course. ‘semantic’ (having to do with the power to choose the topic. while Mr Knightley. of course. income. MP and P have Cinderella-like plots in which the female protagonists grow from a marginal position to one of relative power. gender is not the only criterion according to which dominant or subordinate positions are assigned. Per Linell has defined three different types of ‘interactional dominance’: ‘quantitative’ (determined by the amount of words spoken by each participant). and different hearers are variously addressed by each speaker (cf. The distinction is relevant to Austen’s novels: while women usually exercise ‘quantitative’ and ‘semantic’ dominance (most men preferring to let them ‘do the talking’). and each participant has a different contribution to make. ‘Dominance’ or ‘subordination’. ‘ratified participants [who] are not specifically addressed by the speaker’. In the ‘Box Hill’ episode of E. it is usually men who are ‘strategically dominant’ – the opinion of such authoritative characters as Mr Knightley clearly bearing a different weight from all the others. He observed. it is simply the most selfassured or the most garrulous that take up the floor or do most of the talking: but there is a marked preference for people of higher rank over people of lower rank. gender and personality combine to assign each character a place in multiple interactions – but this place can change as the situation changes: as will be shown in Chapter 5. In many cases. and Margaret is almost invariably a ratified but silent hearer. that ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’ are not the only available roles: in the complex interactions of numerous groups. there can be ‘overhearers’. all those who happen to be in perceptual range of the event will have some sort of participation status relative to it. and the role each character plays in each exchange. and.84 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Frank Churchill addresses the whole company. . from silence to modestly articulate speech. for married over unmarried women. in the sense that there are always one or more dominant figures. and to impose one’s interpretation on that topic). etc. while Marianne can be quantitatively dominant. addresses himself indirectly to Emma. so that everybody feels entitled to speak. who obtains a right to take up the floor. In 1981. consequently. Elinor is often strategically dominant. Interaction in Austenland is always ‘asymmetrical’ (Markova and Foppa 1991). though really talking to both Emma and Churchill. are not only displayed in each character’s turns at talk. dominance is negotiated and striven for rather than possessed. these questions were to be accompanied with ‘some excuse’. without some apology’ were to be avoided ‘by all means’ (Trusler 1775: 106). and assume the style of dictator’ (Anon. Palmer does not hear me. 1821: 71). as Sir Walter Elliot in P). In Lady Catherine’s hands. The price they pay for this behaviour is covert social censure: ‘[Mrs Palmer speaking] How I should like such a house for myself! Should not you. eighteenth-century English manuals took up the Renaissance idea of the ‘conversazione’ as the sociable event par excellence (one of the most famous Italian courtesy books of the period was Guazzo’s Civil Conversazione. but they are usually considered foolish or boorish or both. . The conversation manuals inveighed against the vice of ‘despotism’. ‘Mr. As noted by Peter Burke. while ‘abrupt questions. Other characters – men.. and did not even raise his eyes from the newspaper. in a cooperative game of tennis where nobody wants the ball to bounce twice in the opponent’s half. a ‘female’ kind of conversation structure X1 + X2 + X3 is preferred to a ‘male’ structure X + Y + Z (Coates 1996: 60). and could not help looking with surprise at them both.e. so as not to be ‘reckoned impertinent’. in the midst of the same company.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 85 Another general rule for conversation seems to be that each participant has to take up former speaker’s speech and take it as a starting point for his/her contribution. each conversation turns into an interrogation displaying  Lord Chesterfield thinks it almost superfluous to insist on this point: ‘I should suppose it unnecessary to advise you to adapt your conversation to the company you are in’ (Trusler 1775: 98). and they may be put up with merely because they are acknowledged to be in the grip of one or more hobby horses (and can afford it. where a general conversation would be more instructive and more universally agreeable’ (Anon. Palmer made her no answer. The author of An Essay on Conversation warned the reader against ‘the habit of forming. of never being at ease except in society where they can take the lead. Mr.’ said she. i. several select parties of private conversation. 1821: 87). ‘that disposition which some persons possess. It is so ridiculous!’ This was quite a new idea to Mrs. 1574) by insisting that one had to adapt one’s conversation to the people one is conversing with. ‘he never does sometimes. there are characters who change or shift the subject at their pleasure (or who drift between loosely related subjects). Lord Chesterfield wrote that one need not be ‘ashamed of asking questions. (S&S 92) Another kind of impolite behaviour is displayed by Lady Catherine in P&P. In the terms of feminist linguist Jennifer Coates. if such questions lead to information’. laughing. usually – refuse to cooperate in picking up the conversational thread. Palmer?’ Mr. and we have already seen that interrupting people or calling attention away from what they said was perceived as impolite. however. she had never been used to find wit in the inattention of any one. Dashwood. In Austenland. you may find it a difficult matter.. when dinner was over and they had drawn round the fire. ‘What have wealth or grandeur to do with happiness?’ ‘Grandeur has but little. I have no wish to be distinguished. Your competence and my wealth are very much alike. Beyond a competence. The following (rather informal and bantering) exchange between Mrs Dashwood. Interruptions will be forbidden. ‘. dominance and ‘participation framework’ are concerned: only a few conversations in Austenland will conform to this ideal.’ (S&S 77–8) .’ ‘Strange if it would!’ cried Marianne.’ ‘As moderate as those of the rest of the world.. Do your sisters play and sing?’ .. a conversation will be initiated and conducted by the people of higher rank.’ said Elinor..’ ‘I shall not attempt it. and by married rather than unmarried ladies when women are in the lead. and with no inclination for expense. but like every body else it must be in my own way. and each topic will be handed round from participant to participant (with other-selection preferred over self-selection. ‘are you still to be a great orator in spite of yourself?’ ‘No.’ ‘Perhaps.’ said Elinor. I hope my mother is now convinced that I have no more talents than inclination for a public life!’ ‘But how is your fame to be established? for famous you must be to satisfy all your family. and Elinor’s interventions carry more authority than her sister’s: ‘What are Mrs.. and Edward Ferrars in S&S is a perfect illustration. I well know. I dare say. but by no means universal) to be serially developed. I wish as well as every body else to be perfectly happy. no profession. I believe.. Edward?’ said she. no affection for strangers. Pray. Hoey 1991): ‘Do you play and sing. Mrs Dashwood makes all the initiating moves – Edward Ferrars properly submitting to her semantic dominance. Your wishes are all moderate. it can afford no real satisfaction.. ‘Why did not you all learn?.. smiling.. what is your age?’ (P&P 126–8) In conclusion.’ ‘You have no ambition.’ ‘Elinor.Do you draw?’.86 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques that IRF structure (initiation / response / feedback by first speaker) which has been observed to be typical of classroom interaction (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975... a sketch can be drawn of an ideal conversation as far as turn-taking. Ideally. Thank Heaven! I cannot be forced into genius and eloquence. ‘. ‘money can only give happiness where there is nothing else to give it. her daughters Elinor and Marianne.. Marianne (‘sensibility’: the most spontaneous of the sisters) is the first character to intervene without being other-selected. as far as mere self is concerned. ‘we may come to the same point. and no assurance. but every clear deviation from it will have to be explained as an exception or a breach. and I have every reason to hope I never shall. Miss Bennet?’ . for shame!’ said Marianne. ‘but wealth has much to do with it. Ferrars’s views for you at present. Greatness will not make me so. with no interactant taking up too much space. for example. and the chit-chat of the day.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 87 Topics. morality.’ ‘Lord! Anne. I think seriously of Miss Smith! – Miss Smith is a very good sort of girl. sensibility. This chit-chat is chiefly to be learned by frequenting the company of the ladies’ (Trusler 1775: 36). affronted. By small-talk. Such conversation will serve to keep off serious subjects. I mean a good deal to say of unimportant matters. . professions. that might sometimes create disputes. female accomplishments. containing as it does a reference to the Lord) to her sister’s embarrassing remarks on ‘beaux’ in S&S: ‘Oh! dear! one never thinks of married mens’ being beaux – they have something else to do. improvements. and I should be happy to see her respectably settled. indifferent matters in any social gatherings larger than their families. foods. poems. this is not always the case: bringing up certain subjects creates embarrassment. the flavour and growth of wines. it is expected of each participant that he/she shall contribute to create a high degree of ‘topical coherence’ (Bublitz 1988). there are a number of universally acceptable topics. I assure you. While an intimate context (the one extensively depicted in P&P. I wish her extremely well: and. and can result into somebody’s attempt to change or shift the topic. madam. for instance) allows for more liberty. Witness the difference of linguistic behaviour between Mr Elton and Emma Woodhouse when the former proposes to the latter: ‘Never. which however trifling it may be thought. it is hardly allowable to speak openly of financial matters in wider socializing gatherings – and unawareness of such invisible boundaries marks out the boors and the socially-conversationally inept.  The conversation manuals advised their readers to speak only of general. Lord Chesterfield writes that this kind of ‘chit-chat’ can be learned by observing the way ladies talk: ‘There is a fashionable kind of small-talk. Within a conversational structure of the kind outlined above (X1 + X2 + X3). ‘you can’t talk of nothing but beaux. politeness and grammar The injunction to adapt one’s conversation to the people one is conversing with can be applied to choice of topic as well as cooperation. can only be dealt with in an indirect manner. Here is Lucy Steele’s response (itself barely acceptable. no doubt. Other topics. and novels. (S&S 107) In Austenland. ranging from the intellectual and social qualities of individuals to such general themes as sense. has its use in mixed companies: of course you should endeavour to acquire it. in his turn: ‘never.’ cried her sister. – you will make Miss Dashwood believe you think of nothing else. notably marriage in its social and financial aspects.’ And then to turn the discourse. so as to avoid stirring up contention and inadvertently causing pain.’ cried he. However. involving characters’ knowledge of social conventions and their ability to mean what they are not allowed to say by variously exploiting the cooperative principle (Grice 1967/1991) and the maxims (Leech 1983) or strategies of politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987). she began admiring the house and the furniture. In Austenland..10 In MP. of course. that he keeps mentioning Henry Crawford’s short stature (‘I do not say he is not gentleman-like. but you should tell your father he is not above five feet eight. E 164). rather than quality. and even a boor like Mrs Elton feels she 10 As John Wiltshire points out. I need not so totally despair of an equal alliance. while modern pragmatists have observed that ‘modesty’ is a conversational strategy as well as a moral quality (Leech 1983: 131–51). as the mental soliloquies of the following Chapter show) beyond a ‘contrastive’ hint (‘I give you encouragement!’. he must be called’. in Adam Jaworski’s words. is oneself. I am not. on this occasion. as well as of his jealousy. though here it is quantity. The conversation manuals openly discouraged ‘self-panegyric’ (Burke 1993: 111). a ‘metaphor for [lack of] communication’ (Jaworski 1997: 3). are never mentioned in conversation beyond the commonplace assertions as to a woman being ‘pretty’. Another forbidden. for instance. quite so much at a loss. the body is also mentioned in conversation as a repository of health (or. considering.88 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques there are men who might not object to – Every body has their level: but as for myself. The male and female bodies. I think. having a ‘good figure’. I am exceedingly sorry: but it is well that the mistake ends where it does . it is only the boorish or stupid characters who speak too much about themselves.. ‘silenced’ topic. . the boorish daughter of a Bristol merchant (‘Miss Hawkins was the youngest of the two daughters of a Bristol – merchant. my visits to Hartfield have been for yourself only. or a man being ‘handsome’ (though the narrator is occasionally more outspoken than the characters as regards features). more typically. Mr Elton almost says what must remain unspoken about the social and financial distance between Harriet Smith and himself (‘there are men who might not object to – Every body has their level…I need not so totally despair of an equal alliance’). display different degrees of ability in the wielding of ‘silence’ – if silence be considered. Brown and Levinson 1987: 217). Mr Elton will marry Augusta Hawkins. After being refused by Emma. Other topics are ‘silenced’ completely – they cannot even be touched upon in passing or alluded to. you have been entirely mistaken in supposing it. I have no thoughts of matrimony at present. ill-health). Inquiries about health are ‘one way in which a community is constituted’ (Wiltshire 1992: 6). it is a measure of Mr Rushworth’s social silliness. as to be addressing myself to Miss Smith! – No. that makes a difference. 145). or he will be expecting a well-looking man’.’ (E 119–20) We can say that Emma and Mr Elton. I have seen you only as the admirer of my friend. and the encouragement I received’ – ‘Encouragement! – I give you encouragement! – sir. madam. while Emma manages to reject him without making any mention of her own social and financial superiority (a superiority she is perfectly aware of. In no other light could you have been more to me than a common acquaintance. and the two will show their joint social inability on various communal occasions. and then owning their misfortune. uses the expletive ‘d – ’ (94). ‘Very like Maple Grove indeed! – She was quite struck by the likeness! – That room was the very shape and size of the morning-room at Maple Grove. This preoccupation with topical coherence and the correct choice of topic runs parallel with the importance attributed to correct vocabulary and well-formed grammar. These hobby horses range from rank (Sir Walter in P). Those who addict themselves to it. Others go more modestly and more slyly still (as they think) to work. and all that she could see or imagine. abruptly. The grounds of Hartfield were small. Quite often. can never be considered as gentlemen. without either pretence or provocation. 12 ‘One word only. as to swearing. [to] avoid speaking of yourself. the Parker brothers in S) and beauty (Sir Walter again) to seaside resorts (Mr Parker in S).’ He adds that there are devious as well as direct ways of praising oneself: ‘Some. her sister’s favourite room. health (Mr Woodhouse in E. but neat and pretty. and the house was modern and wellbuilt. utters them ingrammatically. they are generally people of low education. 11 . and forge accusations against themselves by exhibiting a catalogue of their many virtues . 1811: 177–8). For the writers of conversation manuals.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 89 has to appear to be talking about indifferent subjects or somebody else even while she is really bragging about her own importance:11 The very first subject after being seated was Maple Grove. speak advantageously of themselves. as they imagine. Others proceed more artfully. Suckling’s seat’ – a comparison of Hartfield to Maple Grove. and are unwelcome in what is called good company’ (Trusler 1775: 100). badly-formed sentences are as rare as undesirable subjects. They are impudent. Men and women with hobby horses are usually put up with. who continually takes the Lord’s name in vain. ‘he who mumbles out a set of ill-chosen words. says of an acquaintance that he is ‘as rich as a Jew’ (NA 82). and utters ‘frequent exclamations. if it be possible. in being made up of those weaknesses’ (Anon. they are only masks behind which a character hides his/ her own preoccupation with him/herself.. the entrance. They confess themselves (not without some degree of shame and confusion) into all the cardinal virtues. swearwords and coarse expressions mark out the boor or the fool as does the inability to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable topics. Elton seemed most favourably impressed by the size of the room. or with a dull monotony. The only all-round boor in Austenland is John Thorpe. and upon all occasions. Mrs..’ (E 244) A similar kind of topical self-centredness is displayed by those characters who have one or more hobby horses which they use to pester the others and – as seen in the preceding section – to hold the floor for longer intervals than they should. amounting almost to oaths’ (84). in my mind. ‘My brother Mr. by first degrading them into weaknesses. but. not least because they can afford them socially and financially (most hobby-horse characters are men of independent means). will tire and disgust’ as much as someone who interrupts other people or comes out with an unwanted subject (Trusler 1775: 30). In Austenland. still more ridiculously. and interlard their discourse with oaths.12 Other characters (Mrs Jennings and Miss Steele The author of The Accomplished Youth urges his reader ‘Above all things. But it is worth sketching out other characteristic deficiencies as well.” said Miss Tilney in an embarrassed manner. he will give you “What is one man’s meat is another man’s poison. even if really his sisters! And as it is – only half blood! – But you have such a generous spirit!”’.” or. “what do you mean? Are you acquainted with Mr. finan’ces. Instead of observing that tastes are different. yearth. Particularly useful in literary representations (because so easily imitated) was the specialized vocabulary that marked women’s language. pronounces them properly’ (Trusler 1775: 33–4). immensely great. conveying feelings of embarrassment (‘“Perhaps. “you would be so good – it would make me very happy if – ”’. S&S 7). but also hitting the ball in an elegant manner. Austen. she writes that it ‘articulated the stereotype of woman’s language that remained alive through the period: women spoke too much and said too little. he goes to wards and not towards such a place.13 All characters. vastly kind. he calls the earth. NA 100). right or wrong. or at least all but the boors and the socially stupid. for instance) show their vulgarity by using such intensifiers as ‘monstrous’ or Miss Steele’s exclamation ‘Oh. surprise (‘“Engaged to Mr. consisting of overused intensifiers like vast and monstrous’ (Michaelson 2002: 37–8). as the old woman said. if ever.. and seldom. 2. and the question is raised of how much fictional conversation reflects real oral interaction – whatever the conversation manuals may say. or because they are betraying too much of themselves (Colonel Brandon vaguely hinting at unmentionable 13 ‘The conversation of a low-bred man.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 90 in S&S. Even his pronunciation carries the mark of vulgarity along with it. P&P 96). knows how to exploit the vagaries of natural speech. The quantity and emptiness of woman’s language were probably its most obvious features. S&S 111). la’ (S&S 238–40). The great majority of speeches in Austen’s novels are made up of well-formed sentences – so much so that dialogue in Austenland can sound artificial to contemporary ears. devilish handsome. pain and displeasure (‘“Good heavens!” cried Elinor. – impossible!”’. devilish ugly. . the laxer grammar of spoken language. is filled up with proverbs and hackneyed sayings. Patricia Howell Michaelson discusses an essay on conversation written by Addison at the beginning of the century. conveying characters’ awareness that they are saying what should remain unspoken for reasons of tact or delicacy (Mrs John Dashwood persuading her husband to give as little as possible to his half-sisters: ‘“Oh! beyond anything great! What brother on earth would do half so much for his sisters. “Every one to their liking. when she kissed her cow. such as vastly angry. which he lugs in up on all occasions..” He has ever some favourite word. and that most men have one peculiar to themselves. however. Badly-formed and unfinished sentences are exceptionally but knowingly used in her novels to obtain the following effects: 1. fin’ances. are engaged in a conversational tennis game which involves not only sending a manageable ball in the other half. Robert Ferrars? Can you be – ?” And she did not feel very delighted with the idea of such a sister-in-law’. He affects to use hard words . Collins! my dear Charlotte. immensely little. ” said he. do not desire it .’ (P 88–9) ‘Please Ma’am. “cannot hold. the connection between rank and (spoken) grammar. Miss Steele as was.. as I went there with a message from Sally at the Park to her brother. when speaking. in E. but he said his master was a very rich gentleman. the latter for the same reasons and because she is in a great hurry to express herself).. Norms. who thought and judged like her. a total change of sentiments – No. The last point holds true for all kinds of utterances – whether or not containing unfinished or badly-formed sentences – in the pragmatic sense that every character.. In that case. use neither favourite nor hard words. who is one of the post-boys. but seek for the most elegant. be careful in the management of them. Class and Types Malcolm Coulthard wrote in 1977 that ‘A successful ethnography of speaking will describe the normative structure of all the speech acts and events of a given speech community . his/her relative weakness or strength of understanding. other characters. social propriety and propriety of speech. this morning in Exeter. displaying a character’s nature. just as people in real life. – he did not mention no particular family. but who from an inforced change – from a series of unfortunate circumstances” – Here he stopt suddenly. and his lady too.’ (TW 278) Gender. more generally. of course. if you would not be supposed to have kept company with footmen and housemaids. conveys knowledge about his/her context. 14 ‘All this must be avoided. This connection between language and (social) self is never more evident than on those rare occasions on which the lower classes make their appearance to remind us that the country gentlemen and gentlewomen depicted by Austen are not the only inhabitants of late eighteenth-century and early nineteenthcentury England. no.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 91 mysteries in his past: ‘“This.’ S&S 48). They was stopping in a chaise at the door of the New London Inn. and depend on it your labour will not be lost. 3.. also in relation with upbringing and social position (Mr Elton and Miss Bates. Master wants to know why he be’nt to have his dinner. but a change.’ (S&S 310) ‘No. and would be a baronight some day. I once knew a lady who in temper and mind greatly resembled your sister. are not always adhered to. and each community has its own rules for interpreting rule-breaking’ (Coulthard 1977: 47). leave many of their sentences unfinished. for nothing is more engaging than a fashionable and polite address’ (Trusler 1775: 34). becomes as it were materially perceptible in the ‘non-U’ forms (Ross 1954) employed by these waiters and nannies:14 ‘I see Mr. . Ferrars myself. and him/herself. are judged (in a social. the former because he seems to be a man of limited understanding and learning. Characters in a novel. ma’am. Never have recourse to proverbial or vulgar sayings. ma’am. free and unreserved’ (Trusler 1775: 36). but not always. there are all those who (generally) remain within the bounds of good conversational deportment – men and women of all ranks and incomes spanning the restricted domain of Austen’s country gentry. however. and I dare say. in the degrees of normative power they have for various psychological and social types. Within this large group.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 92 conversational light) for their adherence to rules. your superiors. On the one hand.’ said Mr. are rather considered ‘proud and disagreeable’ (P&P 7) than boorish if they turn a conversation into an IRF interrogation (as Lady Catherine is apt to do). high-born and rich people (often. ‘Oh! she is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you. Grand ladies and lords. rank/income. till catching her eye. Do let me ask my partner to introduce you.’ ‘Which do you mean?’ and turning round. the variables have a bearing on how characters perceive themselves and are perceived by other characters and the narrator. he looked for a moment at Elizabeth. should be open. and indeed all your conversation with. Nonetheless.’ (P&P 7–8) Degree of subjection to rules is defined for each character by three social and personal traits: gender. topic and purposes of each single interaction (Hymes 1974) – influence these three variables in different and ultimately irreducible ways. while those characters who are gifted with a simple soul are freer than the socially clever (they gain their freedom by failing to notice most of the chasms yawning in front of them). In a general way. hearty. participants. however. There is a difference. who is very pretty. for you are wasting your time with me. or deviate from such elementary rules as the ones advising the use of tact in refusing a dancing partner: ‘You are dancing with the only handsome girl in the room. birth and money coalesce) are freer than poor people and people of no rank. but not handsome enough to tempt me. he withdrew his own and coldly said. You had better return to your partner.15 and psychology. with your inferiors. different social situations – the setting. ‘She is tolerable. as well as for their ability to infringe rules and get away with it. looking at the eldest Miss Bennet. very agreeable. like Lady Catherine de Bourgh and her nephew Darcy. Of course. All of the conversational rules outlined above are universally valid in Austenland – though some characters defy or ignore them. and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. . the three variables outlined above create different degrees of assurance 15 Lord Chesterfield sums up the connection between rank and conversation in the following subtle manner: ‘Your first address to. with your equals. Darcy. however. it can be noted that men are freer than women. and can therefore be used to sketch a summary two-way typology. so that it is impossible to predict conversational behaviour with any precision. chearful and respectful. intentionally or otherwise. warm and animated. Men and women use a different set of adjectives to convey their opinion on matters. at a time when even kings prided themselves on being the first gentlemen of their respective nations’ (Burke 1993: 111–12). Have you never any balls at Northampton?. Here is a brief exchange between Sir Thomas Bertram and his poor nephew William Price. Chapter 5.’ (MP 196) Rank/income (real or presumptive. where the only sign of social distance is the title William uses to address his uncle: ‘I should like to go to a ball with you and see you dance. who was now close to them – ‘Is not Fanny a very good dancer.. as in Mrs Elton’s case) exercises a different.. featuring many of the strategies which have been observed by Robin Lakoff in her studies of ‘language and woman’s place’ (here summarized by Susan Speer): • • Women tend to avoid speaking in a way that conveys strong emotions and generally use ‘weaker’ expletives than men (e. the sections on MP and E).’ – And turning to his uncle. Tag questions are declarative statements that have been turned into a question with the use of a tag. whatever the social and financial gaps separating them16 – though certain rankconscious gentlemen like Sir Walter Elliot in P insist that their superiority be recognized and bowed to.. Tags and intonations require confirmation from others and act as requests for reassurance or approval.g.. Among themselves. like Emma Woodhouse in E. even when they do not openly contravene any conversational rules (cf. Mary Crawford and the Bertram sisters in MP... neutral great terrific cool neat • women only adorable charming sweet lovely divine Women tend to use more ‘tag questions’ than men. sir?’ . such as ‘The war in Vietnam is terrible. 16 In his survey of eighteenth-century manuals of conversation in Britain.. Peter Burke notes that ‘The area in which the English theory of conversation diverged most sharply from its Italian and French counterparts was that of ceremony and compliment . tend to display a more assertive style.. but I trust we shall both think she acquits herself like a gentlewoman when we do see her. which perhaps we may have an opportunity of doing ere long.‘I am sorry to say that I am unable to answer your question. ‘Oh dear’ as opposed to ‘shit’). men tend to interact at a level of equality. The balance between equality (among members of the speech community) and hierarchy was shifting in favour of the former. .Jane Austen’s Dialogue 93 and assertiveness. while women of lower standing tend to display a more cautious and deferent style. isn’t it?’ . more palpable weight on the conversational behaviour of women. Ladies of rank and wealth.. I have never seen Fanny dance since she was a little girl. There are educated and non-educated boors in Austenland. a mixture of various things. there are those who do not entirely submit to the conversational rules dictated by society. One additional ‘female’ rule could be termed ‘the rule of communicative silence’ (for the notion of ‘communicative silence’ vs. These can be further split up into at least three main categories: 1. besides showing caution when they speak. tend to speak less. 2. of course). and Mr Rushworth in MP (Miss Bates. mere absence of sound. A non-educated boor. 1975. like Darcy in P&P. these strategies are employed by female characters as diverse as Mrs Allen in NA. Harriet Smith. They have 17 Lakoff’s conclusions have been challenged from various quarters (cf. and less freely. and to behave correctly in the allocation of turns or in the use of tact and modesty. kinda than men. Their ‘silent role’ is a function of their subordinate position in the society they inhabit (cf. intonation. The prototypes are Mr Dashwood in S&S.. The fools. they do not understand what is going on) are usually educated people who nonetheless display an inability to discriminate between allowed and forbidden topics. The conversational fools. than men or more powerful or self-assured women do. though it is most readily found at low level. is simply not smart or wise enough to recognize all the indirect meanings. women speak in ‘italics’. Jane Fairfax and Miss Bates in E.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 94 • • • Women use more ‘hedges’ such as well. hedging and italics to excess may appear insecure and uncertain about what they are saying and lacking in self-confidence. Women use ‘hypercorrect grammar’ and more ‘superpolite forms’ than men. cf. . That is. Mr Collins in P&P. like Thorpe in NA or Mrs Jennings in S&S. bears only a partial resemblance to these characters). Speer 2005: 33–4)17 Allowing for the linguistic distance between Austen’s society and the Englishspeaking world of the twentieth century (nobody would say ‘shit’. making them appear less assertive than men. Mrs Palmer in S&S. and Anne Elliot in P – thus demonstrating that this kind of ‘female style’ cuts across all layers of the social pyramid. however.. Finally. Women’s use of hedging is evidence for hesitancy. Italics convey doubt about one’s self-expression and one’s fears ‘that their words are apt to have no effect’ . On the other hand. An educated boor. In doing so. Dendrinos and Ribeiro Pedro 1997). Fanny Price in MP. they avoid making forthright statements. y’know. also Rand Schmidt 1981). The speaker who uses tags. (Lakoff 1973. The boors. allowed and forbidden types of conversational behaviour. Sobkowiak 1997): all these women. they give double force to certain words in order to convey the importance of what they are saying. linguistic generalizations based on gender have interesting applications in Austenland (cf. knows what is generally due to society but feels he/she is above such obligations. Whatever the general validity of ‘gender linguistics’. for instance O’Barr and Atkins 1980). or conversational children (like children in the world of adults. ‘cool’ or ‘kinda’ in Austen. This is almost a category of one. for the only character to fit it perfectly is Mr Bennet in P&P (another partially eligible candidate being Henry Tilney in NA). the Bertram sisters. 18 I implicitly disagree with D. while others (Fanny Price. Miss Bates. displays a relatively stable structure. though objectionable. was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently. they are very polite in indifferent matters and too direct when facing burning issues. all of Austen’s mature novels are about ‘negotiation’. Anne Elliot) acquire greater social ‘consequence’ and/or conversational ‘dominance’. with an evident effect of circularity. about how certain characters (Marianne Dashwood. Emma Woodhouse) receive instruction in the ways of humility. Mr Bennet understands the conversational rules of his society perfectly well. from this point of view. Harding. P&P 152). it can be said that all of Austen’s novels. Darcy writes that ‘The situation of your mother’s family. he exploits the principles of cooperation and politeness to emphasize the absurdity of people’s behaviour.W. about people engaging one another ‘in a communicative attempt to accommodate potential or real differences in interests in order to make mutually acceptable decisions on substantive matters’ (Firth 1995: 6–7) – these ‘substantive matters’ always having to do with one’s position in the subtly mobile society depicted by Austen. That position in society. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet.18 While NA. when he speaks of such characters as Mrs Elton. yet sometimes he chooses not to abide by them. from S&S onwards. This kind of behaviour seems to be mainly occasioned by his having to withstand his wife’s querulous insistence. Only a few characters fit one category perfectly – and it is mostly in the earlier novels that the mask of type is to be glimpsed beneath the character’s face. In this sense. but apply them wrongly (typically. monolithic characters become rarer. and Mrs Norris as ‘caricatures’ rather than ‘characters’ (Harding 1968). or they speak openly of what should remain unspoken). in turn dictates how each character shall conduct him/herself in each successive negotiation. The critics. and occasionally even by your father’. are about the loss or gain of socialconversational power. but there is some evidence that Mr Bennet’s fame has reached beyond his domestic walls (in his post-refusal letter to Elizabeth. After Austen’s early fictional attempts.Jane Austen’s Dialogue 95 learned to master all strategies. . 3. by your three younger sisters. More than that. each actor assuming more than one role and each role developing more fully as the plot unfolds (on a scale of complexity increasing novel after novel). so almost uniformly betrayed by herself. This page has been left blank intentionally . however. unfinished pieces and juvenilia. That does not mean. and the novels sometimes move beyond imprudencies to evils’ (Devlin 1975: 1). Looking at dialogue in progress through each single novel. an overall change can be detected from the Steventon to the Chawton novels in the way characters behave and speak: simple. has written that ‘The most productive way to trace the progress of a heroine’s education is to follow her changing habits of speech’ (Mooneyham 1988: x). and her characters correspondingly are taken from the same social set. at least) as educational pieces: the heroines start out in the fictional world with sentimental views or proud misconceptions. social-conversational types acquire new contours and interact in slightly different ways with the other inhabitants of each country village.  ‘All Jane Austen’s novels. however. that any single character in a novel is exactly like another – though similarities can be observed and recurrent types recognized. one-sided characters like Thorpe and Mr Collins gradually disappear. as well as in Austenland at large. and their antics are replaced by the subtler (though equally boorish or foolish) conversational moves of Mrs Elton. and many of her minor works. for instance.Chapter 5 Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines Introduction All of Austen’s novels concern themselves with the ‘3 or 4 Families in a Country Village’ that she advised her niece Anna to concentrate on in her own planned work (Austen 2004: 176). . means understanding the nature of each educational project. too. or the greater discomforts of a false one. and the extent to which it is actually carried out at the expense of Austen’s protagonists. A study of the possibilities as well as of the limitations (above all for the Chawton novels) of the traditional ‘didactic’ approach is Fergus (1983). Furthermore. It is also worthwhile to look at the way conversation and the development of conversational techniques interact with the unfolding of plot and character in each novel. It is the imprudencies and education of her heroines that chiefly interest us. have pointed out that education is a linguistic as well as a moral process: Laura G. are about education. There is a long critical tradition of reading Jane Austen’s works (all but MP and P. but other people. Some critics. and Sir Walter Elliot. Mooneyham. Miss Bates. Austen’s settings are more or less the same. in her stories undergo the discomforts of a true education. and their ideas have to be corrected before they finally marry the ‘right’ man. Therefore. In each successive novel. each conversation is a battle for the acquisition of social-conversational ‘status’.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 98 Finally. such a reading confirms the impression that these novels are Cinderella-like tales in which (conversational) bashfulness is rewarded and (conversational) forwardness is punished – though the fascination of forwardness is often shown with more vividness than the virtue of bashfulness. she mixes almost indifferently with the Thorpes and the Tilneys – though she has a feeling that there is something wrong with John Thorpe’s behaviour and language. Initially. she is no longer so gullible (when Isabella Thorpe. her chaperone in Bath. when exposed to the varied society of Bath. but also between good and bad social behaviour. Mrs Allen.’. . she adopts an extreme form of ‘female style’ which does not allow for questioning and instruction (so that Catherine is generally left to fend for herself when she has to decide what is proper or not).. Catherine Morland. conversation analysis provides an insight into the relationships forming and developing within Austen’s ‘select set’. The information content of her answers is practically nil. and we may expect her to enter her matrimonial life with a fuller awareness of social semiotics. gentlemen and socialconversational boors.  The reference is to Richard J. every verbal interaction can be described as a battle for ‘status’ in which contestants try to score points against one another with each conversational move. though she is still candid.. learns to distinguish not only between gothic fancy and reality. Everywhere. on having preserved her gown from injury. In the end. the narrator informs us that ‘Such a strain of shallow artifice could not impose even upon Catherine’. The only routine Mrs Allen masters is one in which almost all the space of the utterance is taken up by an emphatic repetition of what her interlocutor says – though she also employs the occasional ‘appealing’ tag question. in the course of the few events she witnesses. ‘It would have been very shocking to have it torn. tries to justify her behaviour by letter. She agrees but never expands (Stenström 1994: 39–44): Mrs. Each speaker has his/her own position in a social-conversational ‘network’ which influences their choices and is modified with every move (Watts 1997: 88–93). Furthermore. Northanger Abbey The protagonist of NA. Allen congratulated herself . and each novel portrays the changing contours of a network of hierarchical links which are continually negotiated in and through conversation.. even when Austen’s novels cannot be read as educational tales in a straightforward manner. NA 160).’ said she. Watts’s ‘network/status’ model of verbal interaction. because she does not seem to understand them very well herself. According to Watts. a close reading of (developing) dialogue yields crucial narratological and ideological results: if applied to MP and P. is a simpleton who. ‘would not it? – It is such a delicate muslin .. In Austenland. after breaking her engagement with Catherine’s brother. does nothing to help her grasp the complex mechanisms of conversation. upon your happy alliance with such or such a family. and with a peculiar composure of voice and countenance. I have not yet asked you how long you have been in Bath. and perhaps squeezing him by the hand.’ ‘You need not give yourself that trouble.. uncooperative behaviour) usually do – and that is why she cannot see through Isabella Thorpe’s deceptions at first. with perfect serenity. Saying to a man just married. ‘it is very uncomfortable indeed. ‘not to have a single acquaintance here!’ ‘Yes. a certain language of conversation that every gentleman should be master of.. and which had been in vogue.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 99 ‘How uncomfortable it is. “I wish you joy. madam. ‘Have you been long in Bath. so we do.” to the other in affliction. &c. “I am sorry for your loss. though it was hardly understood by her . whether you were ever here before.’ ‘No trouble I assure you. sir. That is also why she is as much perplexed as she is amused when she first meets Henry Tilney in the Lower Rooms.” or to one who has lost his wife. – That is very disagreeable. Lord Chesterfield writes that ‘There is a certain distinguishing diction that marks the man of fashion. Left to her own devices as she is. he will advance slower. sir. but small transgressions (wrong choice of topic. my dear sir. Allen. that shall attract the esteem of the person he speaks to. whether you have been at the Upper Rooms. I have been very negligent – but are you now at leisure to satisfy me in these particulars? If you are I will begin directly. I wish we had a large acquaintance here. A man of fashion will express the same thing more elegantly and with a look of sincerity.’ ‘What shall we do? – The gentlemen and ladies at this table look as if they wondered why we came here – we seem forcing ourselves into their party.’ whispered Catherine. He will advance to the one.’ Then forming his features into a set smile. Gross deviations from the norm (bad language) do not escape her attention. with a simpering air. begin his compliments of condolence with. I have scarce words to express the joy I feel. in certain sectors of society. for several decades. the theatre.’ (NA 12). “Believe me. “I hope. and affectedly softening his voice. and the concert. In introducing himself. my dear. and how you like the place altogether. madam?’ (NA 14)  Henry Tilney is satirizing a propensity to courteous officiousness which was by no means universally censored. may be civil. with warmth and chearfulness. in the proper attentions of a partner here. but is nevertheless vulgar. you will do me the justice to be persuaded. he produces a parody of the sort of conversation one is supposed to have in Bath – thus implicitly exposing the absurdity of a conversational rule while demonstrating that he masters all its ramifications: He talked with fluency and spirit – and there was an archness and pleasantry in his manner which interested. will say. Catherine is often unable to discriminate between the different degrees of social-conversational impropriety she is exposed to.” and both perhaps with an unmeaning countenance. madam. he added.’ replied Mrs. ‘I have hitherto been very remiss. that I am not .’ ‘Aye. at least in part.’. and talked the rest of the evening to James.100 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Instead of simply abiding by the rules. which would have distressed me beyond conception. really.’ ‘Oh. I know you better than you know yourself. that I take part in your distress. yet her infringements are not so great as to be evident to Catherine – she never commits on-record facethreatening acts. and shall ever be affected where you are so”’ (Trusler 1775: 35–6). I would not have had you by for the world. I would not have had you by for the world. I am sure you would have made some droll remark or other about it.’ ‘No.  The reference is to a definition of Sacks’s as quoted by Coulthard: ‘However. it was quite ridiculous! There was not a single point in which we differed. she exploits the kinetic energy of her opponent’s ball to play her own game. the very reverse of ‘female style’. or some nonsense of that kind. our opinions were so exactly the same. The conversation between him and Catherine is a perfect illustration of how wooden talk would be if all speakers followed Grice’s cooperative maxims literally (Grice 1967/1991): instead of interpreting Henry’s first question as a direct request for information. she talks about the same topic but does not ‘talk topically’: ‘[Isabella talking] Do you know I get so immoderately sick of Bath. Miss Thorpe’s main sin is a propensity to exploit others’ talk to further her own conversational aims and personal purposes. your brother and I were agreeing this morning that. I would not have made so improper a remark . as Sacks (1968) argues. talking topically and talking about some topic chosen by another speaker is not the same thing at all. Isabella Thorpe is. but in which each speaker talks on a different topic’ (Coulthard 1977: 77).’ ‘Indeed you do me injustice. a conversational boor. Henry Tilney meta-communicatively describes the rules he must or should abide by.. .. indeed I should not. you are such a sly thing. though it is vastly well to be here for a few weeks. You would have told us that we seemed born for each other. In thematic terms. she twists the obvious into something else while still appearing to defer to her interlocutor’s judgement. Her parasitic technique is. Catherine decodes it literally as a request for permission to ask for information. Far from taking part in an equal X1 + X2 + X3 tennis match where each opponent hits the other’s ball and sends a comfortable shot in the other half. we would not live here for millions. in a sense. yes you would indeed. my cheeks would have been as red as your roses. because where someone adopting the latter would ask for confirmation even when stating the obvious. he follows suit by proceeding to ask the first question he had asked permission to ask. One can perfectly well have a sequence in which successive speakers talk in a way topically coherent with the last utterance.’ (NA 50) insensible of your unhappiness. Isabella smiled incredulously. We soon found out that our tastes were exactly alike in preferring the country to every other place. ‘in matters of no great importance’ one should ‘complaisantly . he tends to exploit others’ talk in parasitic fashion. forms elliptical sentences.  Lord Chesterfield observes that ‘Those who contradict others upon all occasions. ‘vague’.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 101 Miss Thorpe’s vulgarity is also mirrored in her slovenly.’ ‘I am sure I think it a very good one. as noted by Peter Burke. is that he contradicts people openly. I hope. if I had not come’. the reverse of a gentleman. Thorpe habitually engage in “what they called conversation. NA 42). in the looser twentieth-century sense. Miss Morland? I say it is no bad notion. “That must be false. As seen in Chapter 4. and not often any resemblance of subject”’ (Brown 1973: 108). and says what must remain unspoken (He tells Catherine: ‘Not expect me! that’s a good one! And what a dust would you have made. submit [one’s] opinion to that of others.. Isabella is a great offender with adjectives and adverbs and has an affection for superlatives’.. and indirect expressions of dissent recommended’ (Burke 1993: 110). on record and without redress (Brown and Levinson 1987: 68–70).’ (Trusler 1775: 95–6. He is a complete boor. uses a great variety of fillers and informal expressions. however. the quality of spoken language in Austenland is gauged by its proximity with the more elegant written variety.’ ‘Do you? – that’s honest. 104). as when he covertly proposes marriage to the uncomprehending Catherine: ‘A famous good thing this marrying scheme. but in which there was scarcely ever any exchange of opinion. you will come to Belle’s wedding. Wiesenfarth (1967: 17): ‘Isabella and John have no regard for the meaning of words or for propriety in using them.  Cf.’ (NA 90) His most serious infringement. Sir”. stereotyped use of language: she displays an ample provision of such expressions as ‘vastly’ and ‘for millions’. More generally. but—I won’t be positive but I really think—I should rather suppose—if I may be permitted to say’. Did you hear the old song. Sir”’ have to be substituted with such indirect objections as ‘I may be wrong. John Thorpe’s conversational manners are far worse than his sister’s. “The affair is as I say”. Allen and Mrs. and misapplies many of the terms she employs (‘ridiculous’ is a case in point here). by heavens! I am glad you are no enemy to matrimony however. betray by this behaviour an unacquaintance with good-breeding’. What do you think of it. upon my soul! A clever fancy of Morland’s and Belle’s. takes the Lord’s name in vain. for a victory of this kind often costs a man the loss of a friend. . He swears. Jane Austen defines John Thorpe’s endless “effusions” as “talk” rather than “conversation”. Thus she notes that Mrs. “Going to one wedding brings on another?” I say. In the manuals of conversation. by all contemporary standards.  ‘In an apparent paraphrase of Cowper. Expressions such as ‘“That can’t be true. Like his sister. Thorpe shows  Vague expressions are universally identified in modern linguistics as characterizing spoken as opposed to written language (Carter and McCarthy 1996: 19). ‘Direct contradiction was forbidden. “conversation” is much more than a verbal exchange. and make every assertion a matter of dispute. In a sense. he is a catalogue of conversational errors. As Jane Austen makes clear everywhere in Northanger Abbey. Miss Morland? a neat one. ‘You have lost an hour. ‘Three-and twenty!’ cried Thorpe. and suppose it possible if you can. or gentlewomen. it was convenient to have done with it.. and the carriage was mine. though I had pretty well determined on a curricle too. fills his speeches with a great amount of information which holds no interest for his hearers. and selects himself as next speaker even when he appears to be yielding the floor: ‘I do not know the distance. trunk. and with such a set of perfect gentlemen. till. what do you ask?” And how much do you think he did.. “I am your man. “do you happen to want such a little thing as this? it is a capital one of the kind.102 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques no concern for his fellow speakers’ ‘face’. he ran it a few weeks.’ said Morland. last term: “Ah! Thorpe. because there can be no friction. Miss Morland?’ ‘I am sure I cannot guess at all. and some of them employ a pompous essayistic tone perhaps intended for the reader’s as well as for the hearer’s instruction: ‘[Henry Tilney speaking] That little boys and girls should be tormented [with the study of history]. is not it? Well hung.’ . ‘it was only ten o’clock when we came from Tetbury.” said I. threw down the money.. a very good sort of fellow. lamps. So as not to remain silent. and boors – the former acting as a sort of magnifying glass highlighting the conversational errors of the latter.Three hours and a half indeed coming only three-and-twenty miles! look at [my horse]. Catherine Morland. Just as the inception of the plot is parodic (the novel starting out as a humorous rewriting of the Gothic genre). I closed with him directly.. seat. What do you think of my gig. a caricature of common novelistic types.’ said Henry. splashing-board. a friend of mine. dialogue turns out to be either comical or wooden. the protagonist. When a verbal interaction is initiated within a set of polite. silver moulding . He asked fifty guineas. gentlewomen and fools. the characters appear to be at a loss what to say. is a perfect simpleton. well-mannered people. many of the characters are excessive.’ ‘Ten o’clock! it was eleven. just as he demonstrates a complete disregard for the correct distribution of turns at talk.’ Her brother told her that it was twenty-three miles. just as Henry Tilney is the perfect gentleman and John Thorpe is the perfect boor.’ ‘Hot! he had not turned a hair till we came to Walcot Church . upon my soul!.’ ‘Curricle-hung you see. He takes up too much conversational space..’ (NA 30) In NA. I happened just then to be looking out for some light thing of the kind. It was built for a Christchurch man. but I chanced to meet him on Magdalen Bridge as he was driving into Oxford. town built. but I am cursed tired of it. ‘five-and-twenty if it is an inch. sword-case. the main source of conversational interest is the friction between gentlemen. no real ‘negotiation’ between perfect social-conversational creatures. I believe.’ ‘He does look very hot to be sure. ‘is what no one at all acquainted with human ..” says he. I have not had it a month.” “Oh! d – . the interactants make resort to general topics of high intellectual interest... instead of “to instruct”. In the corpus of Austen’s novels. I am sure I am not extravagant in my demands. all characters making their own contribution. in S&S a contrast between gentlemen and fools is created for the sake of conversational vivacity. this is the richest in social boors and conversational fools.’ said Marianne. but tedious. I use the verb “to torment”. Like John Thorpe in NA. that they might well be offended at being supposed to have no higher aim.. and her three daughters – quoted in Chapter 4 – is one of the neatest examples in Austenland of a wellordered conversation in which a central topic (Edward’s ambition. or Margaret’s inexperienced (and sensitive) silliness.’ Elinor laughed. I must observe. they are perfectly well qualified to torment readers of the most advanced reason and mature time of life. The exchange between Edward Ferrars. who is ‘vulgar’ (S&S 29) and kindhearted at the same time (she tries to comfort Marianne when Willoughby deserts her. 1811: 184–5). The subject is a tender one. ‘Hunters!’ repeated Edward – ‘But why must you have hunters? Every body does not hunt. and it is odds but you touch some body or others’ sore place?’ (Anon. Mrs Dashwood. and wishes everybody happily married).. and that by their method and style. she takes the Lord’s name in vain. But her main transgressions have less to do with vocabulary than with ‘interactional dominance’ and discretion. ‘that somebody would give us all a large fortune apiece!’ (S&S 78–9) As in NA. to put a spark of life into the exchange: ‘About eighteen hundred or two thousand a-year. their’s are nothing to you. ‘I wish. as I observed to be your own method. creates a sense of inertia. cannot be supported on less. Your’s are nothing to them.. . not more than that.’ . however. but in behalf of our most distinguished historians. Unlike NA.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 103 nature in a civilized world can deny.’ ‘And yet two thousand a-year is a very moderate income.’ said Margaret. and like many other vulgar characters she uses the intensifier ‘monstrous’ (S&S 224–5). ‘A family cannot well be maintained on a smaller. supposing them to be now admitted as synonimous. ‘Two thousand a year! One is my wealth! I guessed how it would end. striking out a novel thought. the elderly widow of a London tradesman (S&S 131).’ (NA 80) Sense and Sensibility A bit of didactic woodenness still characterizes some of the conversations in S&S. and hunters. she shamelessly conducts the conversation and pries into what must remain secret:  ‘Cautiously avoid talking of either your own or other people’s domestic affairs. and it takes the debate between Elinor/Sense and Marianne/ Sensibility. in the following exchanges with an embarrassed Colonel Brandon. A proper establishment of servants. The lack of real interpersonal tension.. and ambition in general) is introduced and developed from beginning to end. a carriage.’ . perhaps two. however. S&S displays boorish characters who are not morally corrupt: a case in point is Mrs Jennings. ’ ‘Then you would be very ill-bred. how it is improved since I was here last! I have always thought it such a sweet place. ‘charming’. Sir John.’ ‘Well.’ ‘My dear Madam. indeed. for I think he is extremely handsome. half a social critic. that through some unaccountable bias in favour of beauty. And I hope she is well. Colonel. colouring a little. how delightful every thing is! How I should like such a house for myself! Should not you. sister. (S&S 96) 10 Though she also shows some of her mother’s behavioural traits when she teases Marianne about Willoughby: ‘Oh! Don’t be so sly before us. this wo’nt do. ‘should not stand upon such ceremony. ‘delightful’). Jennings.’ said Mrs. she approves of everything and everybody. It came from town. We do not live a great way from him in the country. Jennings. and like Miss Bates. his frequent use of irony comically exposes the hypocrisy of a social system dictating extreme politeness even among hostile or indifferent people: ‘You and I. ‘for we know all about it. and is merely a letter of business. Colonel. Palmer. come. if it was only a letter of business? Come.’ ‘Perhaps it is to tell you that your cousin Fanny is married?’ said Mrs. ‘recollect what you are saying. As witnessed by her use of enthusiastic ‘feminine’ adjectives (‘sweet’.) but you have made it so charming! Only look.’ said Mrs. I assure you. badtempered husband..’ ‘Whom do you mean. below. I hope. as soon as he entered the room.’ said Lady Middleton. he flatly contradicts people and commits face-threatening acts on record. then. you know.’ cried Mr. ‘No..’ ‘Was it from Avignon? I hope it is not to say that your sister is worse. Mr Palmer?’ (S&S 92) Mr Palmer. it is not. with a temper perhaps ‘a little soured by finding . ‘Oh! you know who I mean.’ (S&S 54) Mr and Mrs Palmer (Mrs Jennings’s younger daughter and her husband) are an interesting couple.’ said Mrs. Not above ten miles. ma’am. is half a conversational boor. Colonel. without redress.’ ‘But how came the hand to discompose you so much. and she is continually consulting someone else’s opinion and asking for someone else’s approbation through a great number of ‘appealing’ tags (Stenström 1994: 79–80):10 ‘Well! what a delightful room this is! I never saw anything so charming! Only think. in Miss Bates’s garrulous manner (cf. without attending to her daughter’s reproof. the section on E). I know who it is from. I thank you.’ ‘No. Palmer. including her ill-mannered.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 104 ‘No bad news. so let us hear the truth of it. She is something of a social fool. on the other. ma’am. . ‘None at all. mama. I dare say’ (S&S 95). she is also a perfect illustration of ‘female style’ in conversation (if garrulity be excepted). he was the husband of a very silly woman’ (S&S 97). and I admire your taste very much. ma’am! (turning to Mrs Dashwood. On the one hand. ma’am?’ said he. Jennings. however.’ applying to her husband. la’). the objections are insurmountable – you have too much sense not to see all that. and. declaring ourselves wiser than those to whom we give it. Colonel Brandon must be the man. It is a match that must give universal satisfaction. Unlike Mr Palmer. from a ‘stylistic’ point of view.. And there can be no reason why you should not try for him. Her naivety 11 The conversational manuals warned their readers against giving unsolicited advice: ‘Giving advice unasked is another piece of rudeness. because he cannot refrain from speaking too explicitly of financial-matrimonial matters. . It is not to be supposed that any prior attachment on your side – in short.’. Elinor. ‘Oh. in the fixed expressions she continually punctuates her speeches with (‘vast’. what can be said openly and what must be ‘silenced’.’ – he replied with a sneer – ‘I came into Devonshire with no other view. Palmer expects you . In short. and no civility shall be wanting on my part. He does not know how to pursue his conversational goals without giving offence – though he is so evidently a fool that he is usually exempt from censure. ‘don’t you long to have the Miss Dashwoods come to Cleveland?’ ‘Certainly. Perhaps just at present he may be undecided. In doing so. from the point of view of topic. because if she married him there would be no danger of her marrying his own brother-in-law. ‘you see Mr. his friends may all advise him against it. But some of those little attentions and encouragements which ladies can so easily give. or cannot locate it with any precision. it is a kind of thing that’ – lowering his voice to an important whisper – ‘will be exceedingly welcome to all parties. though she is certainly vulgar and full of herself. Also. in effect. who is too ingenuous to be considered a boor. Her vulgarity is expressed. the smallness of your fortune may make him hang back. (S&S 97) Another involuntary source of comic effects is Mr Dashwood. Edward Ferrars. Elinor. he often steps beyond the barrier separating explicitness and indirection.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 105 ‘[Mrs Palmer speaking] My love. A very little trouble on your side secures him. to make him pleased with you and your family. it is. you are very much mistaken. When he persuades himself that his half-sister. however. as well as of his wife’s opposition to Edward’s prospective engagement with Elinor.. reproaching them with ignorance and inexperience’ (Trusler 1775: 96). in her having ‘beaux’ as a hobby horse (her lexicon is itself rather vulgar). or implicated. in spite of himself. it is quite out of the question. Like Mr Palmer. you know as to an attachment of that kind. will fix him. he thinks it fit to advise her to encourage the Colonel’s attentions.’ (S&S 195) The third fool in S&S is the elder Miss Steele.’ ‘There now’ – said his lady. has a chance to marry Colonel Brandon. he is often totally unaware of the existence of this barrier. the first representative of the category of social-conversational fools. he blunders several times. he does not realize that his advice goes against the grain of his warnings:11 ‘You are mistaken. Like Mr Dashwood.e. between Colonel Brandon and Willoughby. it is this simple soul who sets the events in motion which will eventually bring about Elinor’s marriage with Edward Ferrars.” said Miss Steele. if they had known your engagement. Marianne. . does not behave. and that is why. as announced by the title itself. and her emotions often pervade her words. like a proper lady – though she is certainly no boor. from the linguistic as well as from the thematic point of view. “everybody laughs at me so about the Doctor. if she did not. – but as that is not the case’ – ‘I guessed you would say so’ – ‘replied Lucy quickly – ‘but there was no reason in the world why Mrs.”’. ‘secretly’ reveals to her that she has been engaged with Edward for years.12 12 Horst Arndt and Richard W. she is judged a simple soul as well as a vulgar woman. During one of their several. those that are not expressed by propositional form. or rather does not want to behave.. Her conversation is usually ‘emotive’. though poor. i. sense and sensibility. just like ‘evaluations’ and ‘intuitions’. however. (S&S 209) The most interesting contrast. strategic way of conveying one’s feelings.106 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques appears in the ingenuous. It begins when Lucy. a novel of contrasts: between the Dashwoods and the John Dashwoods. reasoning or speech acts. Elinor is a perfectly proper unmarried lady: she does not put herself forward..’ said [Elinor]. Elinor’s deft use of hedges and indirect statements and Lucy’s cruder behaviour (she interrupts her interlocutor and contradicts her more openly) leave us in no doubt as to who is to win the conversational battle: ‘Undoubtedly. social propriety and transcendental individualism. and she displays a linguistic fluency which is the equal of her social dexterity. and often ‘emotional’ – i. William Downes writes that ‘emotions’. she usually speaks of emotion. In the terms of Austenland. the latter being the result of one’s feelings coming to the surface of language (Arndt and Janney 1991: 531). Mr and Mrs Palmer. on the contrary.. The quiet. is between Elinor and Marianne.’. usually fall outside the scope of linguistics though they can come to the surface of language: ‘Linguistics traditionally does not do justice to “non-thought experiences”. ‘nothing could be more flattering than their treatment of you. Whatever the outcome of their personal war. and I cannot think why . The whole ill-fated affair with Willoughby demonstrates that she is apt to forget most social and pre-matrimonial proprieties when swayed by sentiment – just as she is apt to forget classical rhetoric and linguistic elegance. who is afraid and jealous of Elinor. falsely friendly exchanges.. affectedly simpering.e. she speaks neither too little nor too much. Janney distinguish between ‘emotive’ and ‘emotional communication’ – the former being a social. Ferrars should seem to like me.. S&S 190). but which nevertheless can be manifested in language use’ (Downes 2000: 100). undercover war between Elinor and Lucy is particularly interesting in its conversational results.. Ironically. she is spared the open or covert censure of the other characters. falsely covert way she has of talking about herself as men’s object of desire (‘“There now. S&S is. Elinor and Lucy Steele. it becomes apparent how vital it is for both of them not to let the other have the upper hand. and her liking me is every thing . rationality and the sublime. . Babb. Even before the event. unfinished:13 ‘He has. this itinerary culminates in a reworking-cum-assimilation of Marianne’s unpredictable speech [Quello che viene delineato dalla Austen è un itinerario che va dall’esplosione alla ricomposizione dei riferimenti epistemici: itinerario che culmina. and of her repentance for all that her mother and her sister have had to suffer on her account:14 ‘. less comfortable by our absence – Oh! no.’ cried Marianne. My illness has made me think – It has given me leisure and calmness for serious recollection..’ (S&S 153) In the end. nothing should tempt me to leave her . a rhetoric that will prove her fully capable of evaluating personality by demonstrating that she can stand outside herself.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 107 When she is in the grip of a sweeping feeling. ‘I am sure he has. elliptical. .. Long before I was enough recovered to talk. let your kindness defend what I know your judgement must censure. one of the few literary critics who has studied Austen’s dialogue in any detail – if impressionistically – writes: ‘in terms of the novel one thing [Marianne] must learn is a rhetoric that plainly differentiates between sense and feeling. ‘and force him to come to me. nella rielaborazione e insieme nell’assimilazione della parola dell’imprevedibilità]’ (Marroni 1994: 16). (S&S 148) ‘Go to him. Francesco Marroni sees Marianne’s treatment of everyday language as an ‘explosion’: ‘Austen delineates an itinerary from the explosion to the re-composition of epistemic reference: thanks to Elinor (who embodies cultural mediation). (S&S 303) 13 Interestingly. kindest mother. I saw in my own behaviour since the beginning of our acquaintance with him last autumn. and if she were to be made less happy.’. his coat. when she looks back on her past with Willoughby. I considered the past. my dearest Elinor. Thus in her climactic speeches. and she marries the sentimentally unappetizing Colonel Brandon. Tell him I must see him again – must speak to him instantly. Elinor. I knew how soon he would come. – I cannot rest – I shall not have a moment’s peace till this is explained – some dreadful misapprehension or other.. however. his horse. nothing but a series of imprudence towards myself.. His air.. I was perfectly able to reflect. But my mother. 14 Howard S. Marianne’s despair is conquered. Marianne takes over a style like the one that Elinor practices most often’ (Babb 1962: 60). and want of kindness to others. as soon as she could speak. her sentences often become ill. Do not. grazie all’opera di Elinor (il personaggio della mediazione culturale). he has... – Oh go to him this moment. – I feel the justice of what Elinor has urged. sense triumphs over sensibility. and that my want of fortitude under them had almost led me to the grave .’.’ she cried.’ (S&S 74) ‘. (S&S 133) ‘Invited!’ cried Marianne. my dearest.or half-formed. I saw that my own feelings had prepared my sufferings. her conversational surrender is signalled by the quiet epistolary eloquence with which she speaks of her physical and moral recovery. Among the fools. Mrs Bennet herself.. he fails to notice that Mr Bennet is actually being insulting when he compliments him on possessing the talent of ‘flattering with delicacy’. as fully developed as every single sentence is thought out and neatly finished. Taken together. and though I sometimes amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant compliments as may be adapted to ordinary occasions. the Bennet family is an ensemble of very different . Lizzy and Kitty are continually speaking about soldiers and committing all sorts of socialconversational blunders. is a rather vulgar woman who often talks more and more openly than she should (in Volume I.’ ‘You judge very properly.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 108 The speech goes on for much longer. P&P 13–14). P&P is rich in social-conversational boors and fools. the purest specimen is Mr Collins. is a very common failing I believe. Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen’s second published novel probably owes much of its immediate and long-standing popularity to the liveliness of its dialogue.. would be adorned by her. the other fools in P&P belong to the Bennet family: Mary is a sententious simpleton whose speeches always sound like quotations from a sermon or one of Johnson’s essays (‘Pride . or are the result of previous study?’ ‘They arise chiefly from what is passing at the time. or Edward Ferrars and the Dashwoods. May I ask whether these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the moment. and it is a sort of attention which I conceive myself peculiarly bound to pay. and that the most elevated rank. though more experienced.. P&P displays some of the characteristics which make NA and S&S conversationally interesting. As so often in Austen.’ said Mr. who is so ‘absurd’ (P&P 51) that most characters hold him beneath their notice. – These are the kind of little things which please her ladyship. By all that I have ever read. though here the boors mainly belong to the higher orders of society (and are consequently more dangerous). making Elizabeth blush for her. that human nature is particularly prone to it . ‘and it is happy for you that you possess the talent of flattering with delicacy... I am convinced that it is very common indeed. I have more than once observed to Lady Catherine.. that her charming daughter seemed born to be a duchess. Like S&S. P&P 32).’ (P&P 51) Since Mr Collins is himself incapable of distinguishing between allowed and forbidden topics. without those touches of moral and didactic woodenness which characterize certain exchanges between Catherine Morland and the Tilneys.’. Chapter IX. Apart from Mr Collins. instead of giving her consequence. as well as having to suffer the misfortune of being exposed to Mr Bennet as a comic reflector: ‘. I always wish to give them as unstudied an air as possible. moral uprightness is reflected in syntactic and conversational order. a very near relation to Mr John Dashwood in S&S – only blinder and more pompous. Bennet. she criticizes Mr Darcy to his face. They are wanted in the farm..Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 109 voices.’ (P&P 21–2) In the Bingley/Darcy ménage. I have suspected it some time. and I wish with all my heart she were well settled. Darcy and the Bingley sisters use both ‘positive’ and ‘negative politeness’ to soften the facethreatening act they are committing against Jane’s suitor (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69–70): ‘I have an excessive regard for Jane Bennet.’ 15 An interesting goals-and-plans description of communication is provided by Berger (1995). [they are interrupted by the entrance of a footman with a note from the Bingleys. your father cannot spare the horses. Jane. Free as it is from many of the accoutrements of politeness. The vivacity of family conversations is guaranteed – the silliness of Mrs Bennet and three of her daughters interacting as it does with Mr Bennet’s sardonic wit. make haste and tell us. my dear. Bennet coolly observed.’ ‘Can I have the carriage?’ said Jane.’ ‘It is from Miss Bingley’. ‘that is very unlucky. ‘I wonder my aunt did not tell us of that. and then you must stay all night. I am sure.. I am afraid there is no chance of it. ‘I had much rather go in the coach. my dear. and Darcy states it as a general truth that it is very hard for any girl with such connections to marry well. but far from admitting the nature of their conversational goal. ‘From all that I can collect by your manner of talking. Bennet.’ said Mrs Bennet. though she is such ‘a very sweet girl’.’ . and such low connections.’ said Elizabeth. make haste.’ ‘Dining out. Jane’s quiet kind-heartedness.15 they express their regret that Jane. but I am now convinced. ‘I am astonished. who is it from? what is it about? what does he say? Well. Mr. Bennet. by contrast.. said Jane.. you had better go on horseback. has bad connections. you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. ‘With the officers!’ cried Lydia.. my dear.’ said Mrs.. containing an invitation for Jane] ‘[Mrs Bennet speaking] Well.’ ‘That would be a good scheme. In other words. ‘No. conversations are characterized by greater subtlety and indirection. But with such a father and mother. ‘that you should be so ready to think your children silly. Mr. . and Elizabeth’s quick and solid judgement. it should not be of my own however.. are not they?’ ‘They are wanted in the farm much oftener than I can get them..’ ‘But.’ .’ ‘If my children are silly I must hope to be always sensible of it. she is really a very sweet girl. because it seems likely to rain. Jane. dialogue among the Bennets is as quick as it is explicit: After listening one morning to [Kitty’s and Lizzy’s] effusions on this subject [of soldiers]. and then read it aloud . The Bingley sisters plan to dissuade their brother from marrying Jane Bennet. my love.’ . If I wished to think slightingly of any body’s children. ‘if you were sure that they would not offer to send her home. whereas Miss Bennet often evades her questions. ‘it would not make them one jot less agreeable..’ ‘But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world.’ added her sister. The Miss Webbs all play. Lady Catherine shows a marked lack of politeness.. ‘disclaiming’ (declaring that the answer is unknown). Darcy and Lady Catherine both incur censure. in the way she has of threatening her hearer’s face on record.. and they have another.. ‘supplying’ (giving inadequate information). Pray.’ ‘Yes. (P&P 26) Darcy himself is one of the two ‘educated boors’ of high rank that figure among the characters of the novel. or implies more than she says.16 16 In her survey of conversational acts. but they do not suffer under it.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 110 ‘I think I have heard you say. ‘.. ‘If they had uncles enough to fill all Cheapside. supplies inadequate information.’ (P&P 126–8) Besides her propensity to conduct conversations imperiously. ‘Pride’ (personal pride. Our instrument is a capital one. probably superior to – you shall try it some day.’ ‘Why did not you all learn? – You ought all to have learned. without any redressive action (for instance. ‘implying’ (giving adequate information implicitly).’ replied Darcy. for her own part. when she offers advice or opinions in a very decided manner.’ ‘I am not one and twenty. what is your age?’ ‘With three younger sisters grown up. that their uncle is an attorney in Meryton. The only kind of conversational transaction she understands is one in which she asks the questions and evaluates her interlocutor’s answers: ‘.’ replied Elizabeth smiling.’ ‘That is capital.. Elizabeth. – therefore you need not conceal your age. I am sure. Do you play and sing. because they are too rich and powerful for that censure to be open or to influence their actions. ‘your Ladyship can hardly expect me to own it... who lives somewhere else near Cheapside. Brown and Levinson 1987: 65–6). and their father has not so good an income as your’s. . As seen in Chapter 4. – Do you draw?’ . – Do your sisters play and sing?’ ‘One of them does.’ cried Bingley. Miss Bennet?’ ‘A little. and they both laughed heartily. class pride) is self-evidently one of the main themes of P&P. is not as obliging as her interrogator could wish: Lady Catherine is evidently used to complying partners. ‘You cannot be more than twenty.’ ‘Oh! then – some time or other we shall be happy to hear you. ‘evading’ (avoiding answering). and it is pride that leads Darcy to behave impolitely towards the Bennet sisters.’ . or of tact (Leech 1983: 104–30). Lady Catherine’s boorishness is mainly expressed in her tyrannical way of dominating a conversation. just as it is pride that dictates his aunt’s commandeering deportment and IRF questioning. Stenström (1994: 114–15) gives a list of answer-types: ‘complying’ (giving adequate information explicitly). A ball is the first occasion to introduce her to the society her family mixes with in Surrey – a society comprehending such distinguished young members of the country aristocracy as Lord Osborne and Tom Musgrave.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 111 Finally. he is doing so in a commandeering manner. Even as he is asking for permission. to introduce my sister to your acquaintance during your stay in London?’ (P&P 194) The Watsons TW was begun in Bath in 1804. or that I rejoice in my success. as shown by his choice of modal verbs expressing obligation (‘you must allow me’). or do I ask too much. thus leaving her niece comparatively destitute. and does not refrain from comparing his kindness towards his friend Bingley to his unkindness towards himself (as open a double face-threatening act as will be found in all Austen’s novels): ‘In vain have I struggled.’ (P&P 145–7) Elizabeth’s proud refusal teaches him. if not completed.’ . with such regard for Elizabeth’s negative and his own positive face.. one of four daughters of a sickly father who has lost his wife and cannot provide for his children. The protagonist of this fragment is Emma Watson. he employs a style that is almost ‘female’ in its insistent politeness – thus showing that his taming is already underway. combine to make him fall in love with her. to swallow his own pride. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you. His requests for permission now contain no modal verbs of obligation. – will you allow me. and when Elizabeth charges him with Jane’s sentimental disappointment. At the beginning of the novel. Emma has just returned to her family from the care of an aunt who has had the imprudence of marrying again after her first husband’s death. Towards him I have been kinder than towards myself. and are formulated with such tact. Nothing much happens in the few chapters . as to make it evident that he is no longer certain of being accepted: ‘There is also one other person in the party. and abandoned early in 1805.. At the start of their acquaintance.’ he continued after a pause. ‘I have no wish of denying that I did every thing in my power to separate my friend from your sister. ‘who more particularly wishes to be known to you. Darcy is haughty and openly contemptuous: amongst other things. It will not do. and her proud resolve not to be impressed by his self-importance. he makes an uncomplimentary remark on Elizabeth when Bingley draws his attention to her. Yet. When Elizabeth meets him at his ancestral house of Pemberley. in time. My feelings will not be repressed. he proudly asserts the correctness of his behaviour on that occasion. when he proposes to her – notwithstanding his social and patrimonial reservations – he does so in his habitual haughty style. it could be said that the whole plot of P&P centres on Elizabeth’s taming of the ‘educated boor’ Darcy. Elizabeth’s pretty figure. after the death of Jane Austen’s father. the people belonging to the higher ranks of society are either foolish or corrupt.’ ‘If they knew how much it became them. While the middle-class Watsons are depicted as poor but dignified.’ (TW 277–8) If Lord Osborne is a boor and a fool.112 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Austen completed. – ‘Not absolutely’ – he answered – ‘but I was thinking of you. a parson she also meets at the ball. in most conversational exchanges. the Watson sisters use no indirection when they discuss their finances and the importance of marriage in the society in which they live: .’ It was lucky that he added that finish. the means would soon follow.’ ‘I wonder every Lady does not. – Fine open weather Miss Emma! – Charming season for Hunting.’ – ‘Ladies should ride in dirty weather. – ’ ‘But every woman may not have the inclination. The interruption of the plan may have to do with biographical as well as internal reasons.’ ‘You should wear half-boots . or both. and I fancy Miss Watson – when once they had the inclination. he is too simple-minded to understand that some people do not have the means to afford his own lifestyle. a far cry from the refined manners of Henry Crawford in MP. and that she herself will fall in love with Mr Howard. – ‘Were you speaking to me?’ – said Emma. – A woman never looks better than on horseback.. – Do you ride?’ ‘No my Lord. On the one hand. His seducing technique. who had caught her own name. Tom Musgrave is a rake and a seducer. – or any of her Sisters. Emma was to decline a marriage proposal from Lord Osborne. or the means. the distance between saying and meaning is very short. Lord Osborne is half a social fool. my Lord. – as many at a greater distance are probably doing at this moment.’ (TW 286) All the characters. he is not polite enough to avoid dominating the conversation (with an IRF routine which places him in the same category as Lady Catherine) and giving advice too forcibly: ‘Have you been walking this morning?’‘[Emma speaking] No. on the other. If Lord Osborne is outspoken in his disdain for poverty. Levinson 1983: 114) – but it remains so open that the narrator registers it as offensive: ‘I could never dread a meeting with Miss Emma Watson. but it is already apparent that Lord Osborne will fall in love with Emma. half a conversational boor. and Mr Howard and Emma were eventually to marry. they are not fit for Country walking. from the contrast between the middle-class and the aristocracy to the description of the material conditions of life of impoverished single women.. they would all have the inclination. however. We thought it too dirty. speak very openly. however. In the following exchange. is again excessive. and Tom Musgrave employs explicit seducing techniques. From Austen’s plans we know that Mr Watson was to die. his courtship of Emma is barely covered by his own cancellation of a conversational implicature (Grice 1967/1991. Austen may have been dissatisfied with a novel in which everything was too extreme and too open. Do not you like Half-boots?’ ‘Yes – but unless they are so stout as to injure their beauty. In TW. Rushworth. including conversation. it cannot be the greatest.’ said Emma. From MP onwards. I am not so fond of acting as I was at first.. The nearest thing to a fool in MP is Mr Rushworth. and know what a Life they lead. it is as if Austen were trying to watch (female) poverty from a closer angle – and perhaps she finally shrunk from such an explicit description. generally knows how to behave. he is not a clown like Mr Collins. Poverty is a great Evil. Some of them can still be identified as fools or boors. sitting comfortably here among ourselves. but does not understand his own limitations (before marrying Maria to him. – I would rather be a Teacher at a school (and I can think of nothing worse) than marry a Man I did not like. how to be indirect. and then discarded in favour of Henry Crawford. – ‘but I do not like her plans or her opinions . the rich simpleton whose fate it is to be selected for marriage by Maria Bertram. however. I cannot understand it. for instance. – I think I could like any good humoured Man with a comfortable Income. Conversations.’ (MP 146) . In the Chawton novels. much that is on the surface here becomes submerged. Sir Thomas perceives that he ‘was an inferior young man. characters become more complex. becomes less extreme and more subdued in the Chawton novels. MP 156). just like characters. ‘I have been at school.. However ingenuous he may be. she tried to endow her characters (and her narrators) with a talent for indirection. and when attacked by Emma. and doing nothing. I think we are a great deal better employed. who is consistently making a fool of himself. Emma. though she is culpable of many infractions. though the Dashwoods in S&S and the Bennets in P&P are certainly in a bad way (but not so bad as the Watsons). To be so bent on marriage – to pursue a Man merely for the sake of situation – is a sort of thing that shocks me. Mansfield Park Everything. he knows.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 113 ‘I am sorry for her anxieties. and without seeming much aware of it himself’. but their infringements are less serious. with opinions in general unfixed. ‘in my opinion it is very disagreeable to be always rehearsing.’ continued Mr. are all more or less polite. It is having too much of a good thing. and when he expresses his jealousy he does so under the pretence of expressing a dislike of continual rehearsing: ‘If I must say what I think. – I should not like marrying a disagreeable Man any more than yourself. but to a woman of Education and feeling it ought not.’ – ‘I would rather do anything than be Teacher at a school’ – said her sister. (cf. not a boor: he is generally well-bred. – but I do not think there are very many disagreeable Men. Even Miss Bates in E. Chapter 6) shows a dignity no John Thorpe or Mr Collins would ever be capable of.’ (TW 256) The Steventon novels never speak so openly of (comparative) poverty. From MP onwards. Though he occasionally embarrasses his hearers. as ignorant in business as in books. – I suppose my Aunt brought you up to be rather refined. Rushworth is a fool. you never have. and are less easily classifiable as social-conversational types. is neither rich nor independent. ‘Power is the use of sanctions that may be either positive (inducements) or negative (punishments) . and must therefore veil her will to dominance behind a concern for others’ welfare and for the good management of domestic affairs (she has no real power or authority of her own. interrogative style (even as he is planning to do something with words. while ‘the user of influence merely predicts certain contingent outcomes that will follow from certain types of behaviour’ (Bell 1995: 44). ‘that Crawford’s carriage.’ said Tom displeased. and every inch as strong: ‘Those who see quickly.’ 17 According to David Bell’s ‘political linguistics’. Nobody contradicts people the way John Thorpe or Mr Palmer do. being a male. Yet many characters have very assertive conversational styles.. there are no perfect boors in MP. Manage your own concerns. the Bertram brothers and sisters all speak as if they feared no contradiction and were ready to brook no denial. directives. will resolve quickly and act quickly. ‘the truth is’. Excepting Edmund. 18 Amongst other things. when the scheme was first mentioned the other day. and I’ll take care that his daughters do nothing to distress him. and I’ll take care of the rest of the family. instructions. their ‘semantically dominant’ assurance as to what is right or wrong (‘That will not quite do’. . ‘there is no idea’). Tom Bertram. is the most imperative.’ said Julia [to Henry Crawford]. or his only should be employed? Why is no use to be made of my mother’s chaise? I could not.’ said Edmund.114 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Just as there is no all-round fool. ‘You can never want employment. though as domineering in spirit as Lady Catherine. ‘I will answer for it’. politeness in Austen’s world is signalled by the distance between the locutionary surface and the illocutionary and perlocutionary levels of speech (Austin 1962). Edmund. who. stands out very neatly in comparison with Edmund’s more prudent. bosses people around like Lady Catherine. so she relies on the authority of those who are more powerful than herself in order to exercise influence)17. Instead of envying Mr Rushworth. and the eldest brother at that. ‘I know’. Tom’s imperative translates into a modal verb of desirability which is just a little more tactful. understand why a visit from the family were not to be made in the carriage of the family. or is openly offensive like the untamed Darcy.. nobody pries into someone else’s affairs like Mrs Jennings. ‘I know my father as well as you do. commands’. for his goal is to have Fanny participate in the Sotherton excursion):18 ‘But why is it necessary. you should assist him with your opinion. Authority statements typically take the form of orders. The assertiveness of this trio. even in grammatical mood (at least when speaking to his younger brother): ‘I know all that.’ (MP 100) When grafted onto his sister Julia’s style.’ (MP 47) The Bertram sisters form a very tight trio with Mrs Norris. pronouncements. he does use polite interrogative forms. My mind is entirely made up. Norris.’ When he tells his sister that he is in love with Fanny Price. there is no idea of her going with us. when we may have seats in a barouche! No. ‘taking out two carriages when one will do. But I told a man mending a hedge that it was Thornton Lacey. Nevertheless. my dear Edmund.’. and he agreed to it. Sir Thomas.’ said Edmund.’ ‘Fanny!’ repeated Mrs. I suppose. She stays with her aunt. as you have perhaps heard me telling Miss Price.’ (MP 228) .’ ‘And my dear Edmund. when he must defer to someone’s authority (Sir Thomas’s.’ (MP 61–2) In comparison with Tom Bertram and his sisters. I will answer for it that we shall find no inconvenience from narrow roads on Wednesday. Crawford depends upon taking us. ‘Oh! dear. and between ourselves. that will not quite do. Mary. After what passed at first.’ ‘There is no hardship. Norris. ‘my dear Edmund. he never thinks of mentioning her will and her determination (a self-assured man like him would never dream of being refused by someone inferior by birth and fortune): ‘I could not get away sooner – Fanny looked so lovely! – I am quite determined.’ ‘That would not be a very handsome reason for using Mr. She is not expected. I believe it would be generally thought the favourite seat. Crawford’s. May I hope for your acquiescence and for your not influencing your son against such a tenant?’ (MP 193) The revealing trait in the conversational style of this self-centred character (it is Henry Crawford’s egotism which precipitates the situation. I never inquire. I told Mrs. Miss Crawford will choose the barouche box herself.’ ‘Unpleasant!’ cried Maria. Probably. leading him to court Maria Bertram after her marriage with Mr Rushworth) is that even as he is deferring to someone else’s authority. MP 189). ‘I know that Mr. Will it astonish you? No – You must be aware that I am quite determined to marry Fanny Price.’ said Maria. would be trouble for nothing. coachman is not very fond of the roads between this and Sotherton.’ said Maria. There can be no comparison as to one’s view of the country.’ ‘There can be no objection then to Fanny’s going with you.’ added Mrs. and does not know how to drive. Rushworth so. ‘But the truth is. and you know one should not like to have dear Sir Thomas when he comes home find all the varnish scratched off. the Crawfords are more polite and tactful – but at least as dominant as their neighbours. for instance): ‘I want to be your neighbour. ‘in going in the barouche box. he would claim it as a promise. that Wilcox is a very stupid fellow. he always complains bitterly of the narrow lanes scratching his carriage. even when he is looking for directions (‘No. nothing unpleasant. Henry Crawford is ready to boast that he never asks for information. there can be no doubt of your having room for her.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 115 ‘What! cried Julia: ‘go box’d up three in a post-chaise in this weather. he refers to himself and his own ‘wants.’ ‘Besides. as well as hedges. I wish you a pleasant journey to-morrow. who know how to argue a very personal point in very general terms (so as to avoid open FTAs): .. In his case. no! – do not say so.’ (MP 54) Edmund wants to marry her. Fanny. I will write his excuses myself – ’ (MP 324) His sister Mary is a curious mixture of ‘female’ and dominant styles. as shown in the apology she makes to Fanny for riding too long while the latter is waiting. the lady is not to be won. I am much obliged to you. if we would attend to it. therefore. you must forgive me.116 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Interestingly.. She uses endearing terms (‘My dear Miss Price’).’ ‘Oh. Your judgment is my rule of right. She uses a modal verb expressing strong obligation (‘you must’) even as she is asking for forgiveness (‘forgive me’) and using tactful hedges (‘if you please’): ‘My dear Miss Price .’ ‘Is there nothing I can do for you in town?’ ‘Nothing. and maintains that since her behaviour cannot be justified in any way.. and if he is lazy or negligent. a ‘taming’ process begins which resembles very closely the one undergone by Darcy in P&P. then in a sense it must be forgiven.’ ‘Certainly. I am come to make my own apologies for keeping you waiting – but I have nothing in the world to say for myself – I knew it was very late. but in order to do so he must struggle with her and win – and it is because he fails to dominate her. Good bye. and that I was behaving extremely ill. Selfishness must always be forgiven you know. they no longer function as subjects for verbs of volition. if you please. and when they do appear. and acts on the few answers he can get out of a perplexed Fanny: ‘.. and when you see my cousin – my cousin Edmund. if you please. because he is not able to overcome her ambition and her pride (she is attracted to him.’ ‘Have you any message for anybody?’ ‘My love to your sister. I wish you would be so good as to say that – I suppose I shall soon hear from him. than any other person can be. and. He asks for permission and advice. when his ego has to suffer the blow of Fanny’s rejection (but his ego is strong enough to keep the siege going). When you give me your opinion. and Crawford’s conversational faults had never been as great or evident as Darcy’s – but the change is striking all the same. We have all a better guide in ourselves. I always know what is right. They are both of them very skilful conversational wrestlers.’ ‘Yes. Mary and Edmund fight several battles over the crucial question of church orders. modestly lays all the blame on herself (Leech 1983: 132). First-person pronouns almost disappear (in favour of the second person). Shall I go? Do you advise it?’ ‘I advise! – you know very well what is right. that he renounces her and marries his subordinate cousin. but does not want to be a clergyman’s wife). yet she also offers no real reason for her actions. because there is no hope of a cure. no doubt. and has the best intentions of doing nothing all the rest of his days but eat.. to the trouble of waiting for one. Edmund Bertram wants Mary Crawford.’ ‘There are such clergymen. she is taught in the ways of social-conversational subordination by her aunt Norris and her cousins (Edmund excepted): in order to survive. but I think they are not so common as to justify Miss Crawford in esteeming it their general character. which shews that she is pleased with it. of taste for good company. and by an illuminated countenance. Barlow. to continue any topic of instruction or entertainment they happen to be engaged in’ (More 1777: 40–41). she has to cancel herself. or any one whom she thought entitled to particular . indeed. may promote any subject by a profound and invariable attention. Maria and Julia Bertram want Henry Crawford. and quarrel with his wife. It is indolence Mr. which make men clergymen. it is thanks to this self-cancellation that she insinuates herself into other people’s lives and eventually becomes mistress of her own. among all these dominant characters (for even Edmund.. His curate does all the work. and grow fat. If the speaker was Dr. Almost four decades before the publication of MP. and Mary’s bland condemnation of such an enormous social crime. and have to content themselves with Mr Rushworth and Mr Yates. the most perfect example of subordination and ‘female style’ in Austen’s works. Mary Crawford sacrifices Edmund to her pride and ambition. and manages to marry him after Henry’s elopement with Maria. It is through the ‘rhetoric of silence’ that she captivates males who like being listened and deferred to. The hero of More’s Coelebs in Search of a Wife – a fictional translation of the author’s ideology – finally finds the perfect bride in a young woman who closely resembles Fanny Price. to deny her own wants and make herself as useful to others as she can. or her father. which proves she understands it.’ (MP 87) Ironically. Bertram. As soon as the young Fanny comes to Mansfield Park. and the business of his own life is to dine. When men are speaking. drink. though very polite. Fanny is in love with Edmund. or of inclination to take the trouble of being agreeable.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 117 ‘Oh! no doubt he [an impersonal clergyman] is very sincere in preferring an income ready made. Paradoxically. This obliging attention is the most flattering encouragement in the world to men of sense and letters. in a company where she has the least influence. the evangelical writer Hannah More (Fanny herself is a sort of evangelical model) had extolled the virtue and usefulness of female silence: ‘How easily and effectually may a wellbred woman promote the most useful and elegant conversation. almost without speaking a word! for the modes of speech are scarcely more variable than the modes of silence . Lucilla has ‘her attention always riveted on the speaker. watch the weather. is the only one who gets what she wants. Indolence and love of ease – a want of all laudable ambition. but in the end he marries Fanny. though she is far more perfect and far more wooden as a fictional character. is assertive in his upright and modest way). A woman. Fanny. A clergyman has nothing to do but to be slovenly and selfish – read the newspaper. in a low voice. she speaks briefly. and situates it in the context of the early nineteenth-century literary marketplace.’ said Edmund.. in a low voice. Fanny is a constant but inaudible presence in the novel. it would be wrong to deduce that since Fanny so often disappears vocally from the scene. A recent account which problematizes this dependence.. Fanny tries to reinforce his own negative impressions (‘Cruel! .’ said she.’ said Fanny with gentle earnestness. should not blind us to its ruthless timing: [Edmund and Fanny] continued to talk of Miss Crawford alone. she gently laid down her work. to Edmund. and to you! Absolute cruelty!’. as her niece has been entirely brought up by her? She cannot have given her right notions of what was due to the admiral. When Edmund relates his final. quite cruel! at such a moment to give way to gaiety and to speak with lightness... and as quietly resumed it when they had done speaking’ (More 1808/1995: 105). summed up by the narrator. sir Thomas’s inheritance would have fallen in better hands). whatever profession Dr. decisive argument with Mary Crawford. in the interrogative mood (asking for someone else’s approval). felt more than justified in adding to his knowledge of The dependence of MP on the ‘evangelical novels’ written by the likes of More is widely recognized. Crawford. once again.19 Conversationally. Fanny. (MP 74) ‘I am disappointed. but said it was not very bad. he would have taken a – – not a good temper into it. When questioned. ‘I am sure you have the headach?’ She could not deny it. (MP 57) However. and when after a while he is starting to relent.’ (MP 88) ‘Fanny. ‘that this impropriety is a reflection itself upon Mrs. by litotes. and her modest interventions (she is always submissive in tone and fact) are often ‘swallowed’ or summed up by the narrator: ‘Certainly. and how excellent she would have been. had she fallen into good hands earlier.’ (MP 51) ‘. she does not waste it. The fact that her intervention is. Grant had chosen. her silent gaze is absent from it. after a little consideration. now at liberty to speak openly. though there is no universal agreement on the ideological nature of the relationship. and how she had attached him. Her self-silencing is a strategy as well as a necessity – and when she finally has the opportunity to pursue her (unconscious?) plans. she adds a detail which casts an evil shadow on Mary’s character (she had heard her say that if Tom Bertram had died. and how delightful nature had made her. 19 . after looking at her attentively.’ said Fanny.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 118 respect. or that since she never speaks of her wants. she has no ambitions and does nothing to further her purposes. MP 358). is Mandal (2007: 91–130). (MP 68) ‘Do not you think. but never refined. In Austenland. from the psychological point of view. though she is perhaps the funniest and certainly the most famous fool in Austenland. Surry is the garden of England. Sometimes she is openly (though unwittingly) face-threatening. This might seem a strange contention to make regarding a novel which contains Miss Bates and Mrs Elton – but even Miss Bates and Mrs Elton are characters rather than types. This was not an agreeable intimation. Chapter 6): ‘It is a sort of thing. I believe. there are no perfect social-conversational fools or boors. is not a perfect fool. but she knows how to praise herself while appearing to praise somebody else. but readers are never allowed to merely laugh or grow indignant at their behaviour. Elton emphatically. Elton. Miss Bates is a fool.’ ‘Yes. their functions in the Highbury society extending far beyond those of a Mr Collins or of a Lady Catherine. by some hint of what share his brother’s state of health might be supposed to have in her wish for a complete reconciliation. but we must not rest our claims on that distinction. have something to do with her being the daughter of a Bristol tradesman (E 164). tries to acquire the socialconversational manners of her betters (or. ‘which I should not have thought myself privileged to inquire into. Mrs Elton is more skilled in the use of indirection. though. as well as Surry. (MP 361) Emma In E as in MP.’ cried Mrs. Though. perhaps.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 119 her real character. I am quite aware of that. are called the garden of England. as when she flatly contradicts Emma: ‘Oh! yes. she speaks too much in the first person. but blunders continually. (E 245–6) Usually. you know. Many counties. one of Mrs Elton’s favourite indirect techniques is ‘contrastive stress’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 217) – a technique she often uses to commit off-record FTAs (cf. with a most satisfied smile. unlike Mrs Jennings in S&S. It would have been a vast deal pleasanter to have had her more disinterested in her attachment.’ ‘No. we are given to understand. Of course. they are forced to acknowledge their social and conversational powers (while Mr Collins is invariably made fun of. As seen in Chapter 4. and Lady Catherine is never shown as less than a virago). I fancy not. but his vanity was not of a strength to fight long against reason. of that country gentry her father has bought and sold his way into).’ Emma was silenced. ‘I never heard any county but Surry called so. and quite often. Also.’ replied Mrs. Mrs Elton’s bad manners. and Mrs Elton is a boor. Nature resisted it for a while. Mrs Elton. as the Chaperon of the party – I never was in any circle – exploring parties – young ladies – married women – ’ (E 334) Even Miss Bates. It is the garden of England. those who have connections with trade are sometimes allowed to be good. Her conversational style displays a garrulous . . My mother often wonders that I can make it out so well. All this spoken very fast obliged Miss Bates to stop for breath. She often says. and with some apology’ (Trusler 1775: 92). ‘You are extremely kind. and here it is. – ‘Oh! here it is. but I had it in my hand so very lately that I was almost sure it must be on the table. and very applicable to the subject you are upon. I was sure it could not be far off. ‘you who are such a judge. It is such a blessing! . she can see amazingly well still.’ replied Miss Bates highly gratified. You are so kind!’ replied the happily deceived aunt. first of all. – but. My mother does not hear. Cole. apologise for her writing so short a letter – only two pages you see – hardly two – and in general she fills the whole paper and crosses half. Miss Bates’s speeches are as perfect an illustration of ‘female style’ as can be found in Austen’s novels (she may be ‘quantitatively dominant’. unless they are very short indeed. “Well. so I knew it could not be far off. and knows that she must bow to everybody else’s power and authority (Bell 1995: 44): ‘Thank you. And. At the same time. now I think you will be put to it to make out all that chequer-work” – don’t you. She is continually dispraising herself. but I had put my huswife upon it. she is a little deaf you know.’ addressing her. . I was reading it to Mrs. and relates endless anecdotes20 and conversations of no interest whatsoever for her hearers (though Austen drops many hints about the mysteries of this novel in her long speeches). for it is such a pleasure to her – a letter from Jane – that she can never hear it often enough. praising and thanking other people (Leech 1983: 132). She speaks too much. She is conscious of her position of total subordination (as a poor widow). I really must. if she had nobody to do it for her – every word of it – I am sure she would pore over it till she had made out every word.. while eagerly hunting for the letter. indeed. only just under my huswife – and since you are so kind as to wish to hear what she says. without being aware. and so it was quite hid. I was reading it again to my mother. though my mother’s eyes are not so good as they were. in justice to Jane. she exercises a perceptible ‘quantitative dominance’). Surely. and except for their lengthiness. thank God! with the help of spectacles. in this case relate them in as few words as possible. and Emma said something very civil about the excellence of Miss Fairfax’s handwriting. appealing to their judgement through the use of questions and question tags. she infringes many of the rules which govern the allocation of turns in conversation (whenever she speaks. as well as the selection of allowable topics. and write so beautifully yourself. Hetty. and are led to think the elderly spinster as simple20 ‘Avoid telling stories in company. you see.’. without the least digression.120 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques naivety which is endearing and irritating at the same time – yet one also suspects a degree of craft in this simplicity. readers see Miss Bates through her patronizing eyes. when the letter is first opened. I am sure there is nobody’s praise that could give me so much pleasure as Miss Woodhouse’s. Ma’am. but she is ‘semantically’ and ‘strategically’ deferent). I am sure she would contrive to make it out herself. ma’am? – And then I tell her. ‘do you hear what Miss Woodhouse is so obliging to say about Jane’s handwriting?’ (E 139–40) Since Emma is almost always the narrator’s reflector in E. and since she went away. cool light of day’. Emma is also the narrator’s reflector. I shall be sure to say three dull things as soon as I open my mouth. she displays her will to power in her successful attempt to marry Miss Taylor to Mr Weston. Pardon me – but you will be limited as to number – only three at once. most characters display their nature to the reader only in connection with Emma. A selection shows the parasitic nature of her interventions – since they are full of cohesive ties with Emma’s speeches. I see what she means. is yet another illustration of ‘female style’: in her transactions with Emma. At the beginning. and always in a compliant vein (‘to be sure’. in particular. (turning to Mr. she speaks only when questioned. Chapter 6): ‘Oh! very well. and that the latter has perfectly understood her meaning (cf. Yes. though they both have their conversational and narrative roles to play. semantic (Mrs Elton). and ends up as a more subordinate lady who is very glad to admit that her husband had been right in all their transactions.. . self-willed young woman who wants to exercise social power and conversational dominance. Chapter 1). Lascelles 1939: 76). ‘then I need not be uneasy. or she would not have said such a thing to an old friend. and strategic dominance (Mr Knightley). but such a description accepts the male world-view implicitly inspiring Knightley’s ideas. ‘Ah! ma’am.’ (E 335) Miss Bates and Mrs Elton are marginal characters. Knightley. ‘indeed’). while she has difficulties with those who exercise quantitative (Miss Bates). So they share Emma’s shock when she realizes that she has just committed an on-record FTA against the harmless lady. and this holds true for conversational styles as well as for morals and manners.21 The protagonist starts out as an independent. herself almost invariably wrong. ‘Ah! – well – to be sure. you know.” That will just do for me. and in her failed attempts to marry Harriet Smith above her social level. Harriet Smith. Consequently.’ . Even more consistently than in Austen’s previous works. we see all events as filtered by Emma’s senses and prejudices.) and I will try to hold my tongue. I must make myself very disagreeable. ‘certainly’. but there may be a difficulty. E can be described as the story of Emma’s taming by Mr Knightley. shan’t I? – (looking round will the most good-humoured dependence on every body’s assent) – Do not you all think I shall?’ Emma could not resist.’ exclaimed Miss Bates. she gets on very well with those who accept her quantitative. the (often distorting) mirror through which readers are allowed to watch (cf. From the conversational point of view.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 121 minded as she appears. they rarely make sense on their own: 21 It has been described as the story of Emma’s passing from (female) fancy to (male) judgment (‘The world of Emma’s fancy fades into the clear. semantic and strategic dominance (Miss Taylor and Harriet Smith).. while the obvious protagonist of the novel is the eponymous heroine. “Three things very dull indeed. under a much longer knowledge than they had of Mr. Frank Churchill had been at Weymouth at the same time. indeed. or in a common London acquaintance. sees through her artifice and does not forgive her: The like reserve prevailed on other topics. as the narrator informs the reader. however. (E 28) ‘There is no saying. he is not like Mr..22 Emma.. there is an end to improvement. however. She and Mr. than which there cannot be a more unamiable character. Emma is jealous of Jane because unlike Harriet. (E 26) ‘Certainly. it is evident that she does so in order to avoid awkward topics. but not a syllable of real information could Emma procure as to what he truly was. (E 151) Emma’s real war. She believed every body found his manners pleasing. Manners were all that could be safely judged of. . that will be very bad.’ ‘Was he agreeable?’ – ‘He was generally thought so. lest you should be thought suspicious. as Knightley would have Emma and us believe. she is on a par with her as to beauty and accomplishments – but it is also evident that when she first meets the socially unimportant Miss Fairfax.’ Emma could not forgive her. the heiress of Hartfield tries to patronize her in the same way as Miss Smith. others will be truly so with you. Theirs is a clash between opposing world-views – not. she uses her ‘female style’ to evade Emma’s grasp: while she defers to everybody else’s judgment. for you will gather no information.’ (E 25) ‘To be sure.. But they live very comfortably . Therefore.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 122 ‘Oh. Emma cannot sympathize or commune at all. It was known they were a little acquainted. yes! – that is. no – I do not know – but I believe he has read a good deal – but not what you would think any thing of ... but never seem so’ (Trusler 1775: 99–100).. and it is a war she will finally lose by accepting marriage. (E 25) ‘To be sure. it is not likely you should ever have observed him – but he knows you very well indeed – I mean by sight.’ ‘Did he appear a sensible young man.’. Knightley . Be reserved.. ‘Was he handsome?’ – ‘She believed he was reckoned a very fine young man. Oh! yes. and in this case. indeed!’ (E 29) ‘Will he.’ (E 29) Another example of ‘female style’ is Jane Fairfax – but with Jane Fairfax.’. a conflict between ‘fancy’ and 22 ‘Be careful not to appear dark and mysterious. is with Mr Knightley. Partly. so it is. a man of information?’ – ‘At a watering-place.’. and has her own secrets to hide (the secret engagement with Frank Churchill). Jane Fairfax. is far more skilled than Harriet Smith in the ways of indirection.’. it was difficult to decide on such points. (E 24) ‘Oh! not handsome – not at all handsome .. Churchill. If you appear mysterious and reserved. They have their worst row over Harriet’s prospective marriage to Mr Martin – an event which Knightley deems desirable and Emma improper. ‘No. and said. and a very self-centred younger sister (Mrs Charles Musgrove). (E 54) Emma.’. but I hope you are mistaken. ‘it is always incomprehensible to a man that a woman should ever refuse an offer of marriage. a Cinderella story. He did speak yesterday – that is.. and Mr.’ ‘And if I did. in return for what you have told me [he has just informed her of Martin’s intentions]. this is your doing. for he is as much her superior in sense as in situation .’ ‘Nonsense! a man does not imagine any such thing. Emma. is tamed by no argument. and ends up flatly contradicting her propositions: ‘Come.. ‘Not Harriet’s equal!’ exclaimed Mr. and was refused.’ ‘I saw her answer. Mr. and she is forced to acknowledge that her plans have been defeated – that her vision of reality has been proven wrong. whether advanced by Mr Knightley or anybody else: her final defeat is a practical one. ‘I will tell you something. We can ask ourselves what would have happened had she managed to direct Miss Smith’s destiny as she had directed Miss Taylor’s – for after all. in the sense that events refuse to obey her. he wrote. however. an unmarried elder sister exactly like him (Elizabeth). Knightley loudly and warmly.. and to win an argument with the incontrovertible strength of facts.’ said she. as he stood up. nothing could be clearer. he is not her equal indeed. Emma marries the only man who has been able to stand his conversational ground with her. like MP. but one between her will and his own. I am far from allowing.) I should not feel that I had done wrong.’ cried Emma. Persuasion P is. She herself is modest and self-effacing. a baronet). added. but I cannot admit him to be Harriet’s equal . A man always imagines a woman to be ready for anybody who asks her. both by inclination and as a consequence of an unhappy love affair – seven years before the events related in the novel. however. (which. Mr Elton proposes to her instead of Harriet. Anne Elliot has a vain and selfish father (Sir Walter. Martin is a very respectable young man. What is the foolish girl about?’ ‘Oh! to be sure. But what is the meaning of this? Harriet Smith refuse Robert Martin? madness. a few moments afterwards. ‘Then she is a greater simpleton than I ever believed her.’ This was obliged to be repeated before it could be believed.’ ‘You saw her answer! you wrote her answer too.. she fell in love with Captain . Beside himself with rage at Emma’s momentary triumph. if it is so.’. Knightley does not lose any of his time and energy in tactful repartees. in tall indignation.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 123 ‘judgment’. Knightley actually looked red with surprize and displeasure. You persuaded him to refuse him. and with calmer asperity. I have observed it all my life.. Shepherd one morning . proposes to her again. though Sir Walter and Anne’s sisters are certainly foolish.’ was Mr.’ said Mr. I imagine. [the navy] is in two points offensive to me. but had to support themselves through work (Spring: 1983). He continually pesters people with these fixations. Sir Walter . have at least an equal claim with any other set of men. both pivoting on his own person: rank and personal beauty (‘Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot’s character’.. Sir Walter is a man with two hobby horses. In order to conciliate and get round Sir Walter (whom Mrs Clay hopes to marry. and secondly.. First. and exposed as such. and of becoming prematurely an object of disgust himself.’. – ‘The navy. and ‘Oh! certainly.’ ‘Very true. we must all allow.124 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Wentworth. A man is in greater danger in the navy of being insulted by the rise of one whose father. Her conversational manner is the very opposite of ‘female . Sailors work hard for their comforts. and raising men to honours which their fathers and grandfathers never dreamt of. is very true. Shepherd laughed. Shepherd’s rejoinder. P 10).’ was his daughter’s.’ ‘They would look around them. a sailor grows old sooner than any other man. he observed sarcastically.’ said Mrs. very true. (P 22) His eldest daughter is almost an exact copy of himself. but Sir Walter’s remark was.. while perhaps slightly less vain.. his father might have disdained to speak to. Here Anne spoke. no doubt. as it cuts up a man’s youth and vigour most horribly.. as being the means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction. ‘There are few among the gentlemen of the navy. as he knew he must. who have done so much for us. Quite often. Clay was present . There are no all-round boors or fools in P. soon afterwards – ’ (P 20–22) Sir Walter’s youngest daughter. and uses them as yardsticks to judge everything and everybody: ‘Yes. a lawyer and his widowed daughter – two exponents of that ‘pseudo-gentry’ that moved in the same sphere as the landed gentry. whom her family and friends persuaded her not to marry.’. ‘I presume to observe. he experiences a renewal of his feelings. than in any other line .. and bless their good fortune. they are attended in their house by Mr Shepherd and Mrs Clay. at this wit. and is accepted. as the narrator informs us. What Miss Anne says. is no less selfcentred than he is. for all the comforts and all the privileges which any home can give. and both hope to persuade to move house for financial reasons). who would not be surprised to find themselves in a house of this description. Mr. for Mrs. Sir Walter. they adopt a very prudent and tactful ‘complying’ style: ‘I must take leave to observe. Clay. and then added. But soon afterwards. By chance.. Sir Walter only nodded. I think. I have two strong grounds of objection to it. Captain Wentworth – now a rich and successful navy officer – is thrown back on her path: after recovering from the shock of finding her altered for the worse. rising and pacing the room. When Louisa Musgrove falls and hits her head on the Cobb in Lyme Regis. I do not think she has been in this house three times this summer. wouldn’t it be better for Captain Benwick? He knows where a surgeon is to be found.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 125 style’.. Like Fanny’s.. and my age so different.23 Even when she has to act. ‘A surgeon!’ cried Anne . and go to him. ‘for heaven’s sake go to him. take them. Like Fanny. I am sure. just as losing power means being sentenced to silence (or to harmless. go to him. and not able to ring the bell! So. Rub her hands. Lady Russel would not get out. P 56). the case so different.’ replied Anne. and as a consequence to speak.’ (P 197) 23 In Deborah Cameron’s summary. ‘Captain Benwick. reserving for herself the role of helper or comforter – doing what Arlie Hochschild calls ‘emotional labour’. she does not utter a single word.’ (P 92) Her rise from her initial unimportant and neglected state is mirrored in her acquisition of relative conversational dominance – for in Austen’s novels. she usually speaks of others. Leave me. Suppose I were to be seized of a sudden in some dreadful way. After Wentworth’s second proposal.’ replied Anne.. I thought it was my duty. When she does speak. but no duty could be called in aid here. Her first directives (Searle 1979: 13–14) are formulated in the imperative mood. In marrying a man indifferent to me. meaningless chatter. Anne is always silent about herself. ‘You should not have suspected me now.’ . I made the best of it. she goes so far as to gently reprehend him about what he ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have thought: ‘You should have distinguished. she does so in a very modest way. In the course of the novel. even when she is spoken to (‘Anne suppressed a smile.. and listened kindly’. and I do not think I ever was so ill in my life as I have been all this morning – very unfit to be left alone. becoming powerful means gaining a right to speak. her interventions are often summed up by the narrator. I always do. here are salts. I can support her myself. rub her temples.’ cried Anne. she finds herself in the necessity of taking charge. but very soon she masters herself so well as to be able to formulate her orders as questions: ‘Go to him. and therefore of using ‘language in action’ (Carter and McCarthy 1996: 58–9). Anne gradually finds a polite but assured voice. and all duty violated.’ (P 35) By contrast. . If I was wrong in yielding to persuasion once. ‘You sent me such a good account of yourself on Thursday!’ ‘Yes. but I was very far from well at the time. because she always speaks in the first person and puts her own needs before the welfare of others: ‘I am sorry to find you unwell. she tends to disappear from all interactions involving more than two people: during one of the first conversations including Wentworth and the Musgraves. ‘the kind of work that involves making others feel good’ (Cameron 2000: 80). all risk would have been incurred. which is another form of silence). – take them. and they are helped and welcomed by the Heywood family. sand. The novelty is not only of a thematic. in her conversation she is (quantitatively. yet he also shares the aspirations of the rising commercial class. I may say was wanted. – Nature had marked it out – had spoken in most intelligible characters – the finest. though its plot is only a sketch. was called for. Used as she is to being deferred to by everybody (she is the ‘grand lady’ of Sanditon). but also of a linguistic nature. – The most desirable distance from London! (S 299) The other inhabitants of S lead the reader to suspect that Austen was coming back to the lighter characterization techniques of the Steventon novels. distance from London). S 298). By birth. It is interesting that while all characters with commercial connections are shown as vulgar in the other novels. When he speaks of his commercial enterprise and hobby horse. Miss Charlotte. and in Mr Parker’s intentions (‘Sanditon was a second Wife and four Children to him’. who is to stay with them for a while.. Such a place as Sanditon. From the structural point of view. but blundering. He employs no adjectives but in the superlative. Sidney. Mr Parker employs the language of selling and advertising. Sanditon has been transformed into a seaside resort. he sprains an ankle. Charlotte functions as the alien reflector casting back an image of the Parkers’ home town to the reader. and he also provides the link with its new thematic net. and refers too openly to (small) financial matters and her own (social. and then a Sir Denham. Mr and Mrs Parker have a cart accident somewhere in Sussex. semantically. lists all the required qualities (breeze. and appeals to the authority of unspecified but multitudinous admirers: ‘. strategically) domineering. When they go back to their home town of Sanditon. they carry along one of Mr Heywood’s daughters. of which he is a member by inclination if not by business instinct. S 302) it is meant to compete with Brighton and Eastbourne. ‘a very pleasing woman of two and twenty’ (S 303). thus implicitly betraying her . he belongs to the landed gentry (he himself proudly presents his family as ‘holding Landed Property in the Parish of Sanditon’. Mr Parker is no doubt the most interesting character in the fragment. bathing. because most characters are comic types. The novel is cut short before any couples are formed.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 126 Sanditon This final fragment of a novel contains some interesting characters and at least one thematic novelty. Lady Denham is an upstart and a boor: she married a rich Mr Hollis. Sir. She uses vulgar intensifiers like ‘monstrous’ (S 325). but it appears quite likely that Charlotte will fall in love with Mr Parker’s absent younger brother. financial) importance. purest Sea Breeze on the Coast – acknowledged to be so – Excellent bathing – fine hard Sand – Deep Water ten yards from the Shore – no Mud – no Weeds – no slimey rocks – Never was there a place more palpably designed by Nature for the resort of the Invalid – the very Spot which Thousands seemed in need of.. in S we see a refined country gentleman joining in the gold rush (the gold rush itself is mildly satirized). as all the World knows. Sir Edward is a would-be rake. Parker – and the other is a Boarding school. – I am not a Woman of Parade. Mr Parker’s brother and sisters: they do not merely have a hobby horse. – I hope they will have a good sharp Governess to look after them. depend upon it. for the refreshment the Mind receives in doing its Duty . though – and I shall keep it down as long as I can. – I dare say she thinks me an odd sort of a Creature. The mere Trash of the Common Circulating Library. – My Sister’s Complaints and mine are happily not often of a Nature. an inept seducer bred on ‘more Sentimental novels than agreed with him’ (S 327). Their hobby horse and purpose in life is illness. and their conversational goal is getting other people to pity them. – Well Mr. and it is the bounden Duty of the Capable to let no opportunity of being useful escape them. – I trust there are not three People in England who have so sad a right to that appellation! – But my dear Miss Heywood. Susan. a French Boarding School. – The World is pretty much divided between the Weak of Mind and the Strong – between those who can act and those who can not. I am no indiscriminate Novel-Reader. I hold in the highest contempt. as I have. they live in it. I should never keep up Sanditon House as I do. – And out of such a number. and where some degree of Strength of Mind is given. it is not a feeble body which will excuse – or incline us to excuse ourselves. – Aye – that young Lady smiles I see. Diana Parker is the leader of this small cohesive group: ‘Invalides indeed.. but lacks the high-flown enthusiasm which in his case redeems commercial interest: ‘Oh! – well. we are sent into this World to be as extensively useful as possible. – But perhaps the little Misses may hurt the Furniture. and if it was not for what I owe to poor Mr. is it? – No harm in that. (S 332) A different kind of comic character is Sir Edward. to threaten Existence immediately – and as long as we can exert ourselves to be of use to others. – But I should not like to have Butcher’s meat raised...’. who allows Austen to write a parody of romantic excess and of literary jargon in general.Jane Austen’s Novels as Conversational Machines 127 commercial descent. – it is not for my own pleasure. You will never hear me advocating those puerile Emanations which detail nothing but discordant . that have fewest Servants. – They’ll stay their six weeks. from Richardson to a host of minor imitators. – And I do beleive those are best off. and Diana. – ’ (S 318–19) Another set of comic. excessive characters is formed by Arthur. She is Mr Parker’s partner in the Sanditon business. my Dear. His style is a mixture of clichés and bad linguistic habits copied from the time’s literary critics and conversationalists: ‘.. I am convinced that the Body is the better. you will be thinking of the price of Butcher’s meat in time – though you may not happen to have quite such a Servants Hall full to feed. Hollis’s memory. yes. Yes. Lady Catherine’s nephew. who knows but some may be consumptive and want Asses milk – and I have two Milch asses at this present time. – but she will come to care about such matters herself in time. than by the tranquil and morbid Virtues of any opposing Character . as well as in the Chawton novels. atcheive all.. dare all. The Novels which I approve of are such as display Human Nature with Grandeur – such as shew her in the Sublimities of intense Feeling – such as exhibit the progress of strong Passion from the first Germ of incipient Susceptibility to the utmost Energies of Reason half-dethroned. in S the fools are almost possessed by discoursive practices which are marked as distinct from the social-conversational rule.. when she had first embarked on her narrative enterprise. though it would not do to formulate any definitive statements on the basis of an unfinished fragment. – where we see the strong spark of Woman’s Captivations elicit such Fire in the Soul of Man as leads him – (though at the risk of some Aberration from the strict line of Primitive Obligations) – hazard all. – In vain may we put them into a literary Alembic. . or those vapid tissues of ordinary Occurrences from which no useful Deductions can be drawn.. – our Hearts are paralized. to obtain her . it leaves us full of Generous Emotions for him.128 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Principles incapable of Amalgamation. and such characters as Mr Dashwood and Mr Collins on the other: while in S&S and P&P. and was proceeding to ridicule its excesses just as she had done with the excesses of fiction. the potent. – T’were Pseudo-Philosophy to assert that we do not feel more enwrapped by the brilliancy of his Career. Austen was perhaps falling back on the portrayal of excessive comic characters whose bad conversational habits betray their mental and moral deficiencies.’.. the fools show their foolishness by failing to master the same conversational strategies correctly employed by others. In other words. – we distil nothing which can add to Science . (S 327) As shown by these soliloquizing fragments. Nonetheless... there also appears to be a fundamental difference between Sir Edward and the Parker brothers on the one hand. pervading Hero of the Story. and even when the Event is mainly anti-prosperous to the high-toned Machinations of the prime Character. it is a fair guess that Austen was passing from using dialogue in order to show off characters to using characters in order to criticize bad linguistic and conversational habits: she had probably caught the scent of something new in the air of English conversation. . we can learn some important things about Jane Austen’s social ideals. . various types of conversational behaviour have been seen in a fairly static manner. If B refuses to comply. is far from static – it is never a fixed system that can be analyzed in its general outline. developing system – a battle the outcome of which is produced by the endless clash of personalities and conversational moves. Jane Fairfax.. Watts’s ‘network/status’ theory provides a perfect description of what takes place in Austen’s multiple verbal interactions.Chapter 6 Winning the War of Conversation in Emma In Chapters 4 and 5. then A loses status . If speaker A asserts something . If anything. the characters are simply playing conversational games or speaking of indifferent matters. with no attention being paid to the single elements making up the whole.. B.. however. status is gained or lost by carrying out various kinds of verbal activity ... Mr Knightley. Any support of this position by A or any other member of the group will increase status still further. Conversation in Austenland. were characterised by particularly strict codes of behaviour . 12). and B complies. If speaker A orders or requests speaker B to carry out some action. By examining formal social occasions . If the position is countered by B. changes in conversational habits have been observed which are functional to the enfolding of Austen’s plots (e. and Mr Weston take active part in the  The selection of this particular episode for detailed analysis is motivated by the assumption that individual conversational abilities are most severely tested in what David Monaghan calls ‘social rituals’: since ‘in the eighteenth century the “ceremonies of life” . Miss Bates. In this conversational model. with a commitment to the “truth” of that information.. whether verbal or nonverbal.. Richard J. Mr and Mrs Elton. Marianne’s conversational taming in S&S). A will lose the status s/he previously gained and B will gain status. their respective positions change continually as they acquire or lose status by ‘scoring points’ against one another: In terms of the verbal interaction in which individuals are involved. does not necessarily lose status. In order to identify the connections between conversation and character on the one hand and character and plot on the other. all participants in a given exchange are seen as involved in a hierarchical network. however.. Frank Churchill.. (Watts 1997: 88) The famous ‘Box Hill’ episode of E (E 331–41) can easily be interpreted in this light.. even though on the surface.g.. and about her sense of how well her society is living up to these ideals’ (Monaghan 1980: 4. then s/he has set up an argument position and gains in status by doing so. then A gains in status. Emma. each single spoken interaction in Austen’s novels – particularly in her mature novels – is a moving.. In the Box Hill episode.. if it is true that pragmatics is the study of ‘the relations of signs to interpreters’ (Morris 1938/1971: 43) and of all the ‘aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory’ (Levinson 1983: 12). it comes as no surprise that many conversational acts are aggressive. If the Box Hill episode is seen as a struggle. This very complex multiple interaction takes place in Volume III. Emma against Jane Fairfax. only a few chapters away from the final denouement. who conducts the conversation and selects the topics. The whole interaction can be interpreted as a struggle for ‘dominance’ (Linell 1990) as well as ‘status’ – but dominance. because he/she is at least as reticent and as indirect as the beleaguered Miss Fairfax. It is perhaps ironical that the only open FTA is committed by Emma against Miss Bates – the most obvious interpersonal interpretation being that the eponymous heroine discharges all the tension she has accumulated as a primary or indirect target on the most helpless victim available. only a pragmatic analysis will enable us to distinguish between what the characters ‘say’ and what they ‘mean’. or between what they say and what they do (socially. The narrator is not very helpful in this sense. conversationally) with words. or that Emma will marry Mr Knightley. though not openly declared (the Eltons against Emma. It might be noted in passing that the introduction of pragmatics as an analytical tool reinstates content as a source of meaning’.. Harriet Smith being the only listener who remains silent throughout the scene. Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax’s attachment has not yet been revealed. Mr Knightley against Frank Churchill). seems to be more predetermined and less changeable (less ‘negotiable’). At this stage of the plot. Chapters 4 and 5). ‘quantitative dominance’ is neatly distributed between Frank Churchill and the embittered Mrs Elton. . and there is still no reason to think that Harriet Smith will marry the farmer Robert Martin. master the art of indirection – i.  Douthwaite (2000: 166–7) underlines the centrality of pragmatics within the domain of stylistics: ‘The practical application of pragmatics to the analysis of literary and nonliterary texts is as important as it is vast . ‘semantic dominance’ is exercised throughout by Frank Churchill. Therefore.e. Given these tensions and these mysteries. Mrs Elton is of course particularly busy committing off-record face-threatening acts against Miss Woodhouse. while ‘strategic dominance’ can be incontestably attributed (here as in the whole novel) only to Mr Knightley – and perhaps to Jane Fairfax when Frank Churchill bows ‘in submission’ at her indirect reproach.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 130 conversation. it must be described as a covert one: all the participants.. the tensions between characters are already more or less clear. however. on the whole. as is the rule with Austen’s later novels (cf. but even the gentlemanlike Mr Knightley and the modest Miss Fairfax try to ‘score points’ against Frank Churchill. whereas Mrs Elton is offended by the status accorded to Emma in Churchill’s playful opening moves. Only one of the marriages has been celebrated (the Eltons’). they know how to ‘score points’ without incurring censure. It can be said that the way in which these patterns of dominance are perceived leads the characters to attempt to ‘score points’ against each other: Mr Knightley is irritated by Frank Churchill’s dominant behaviour (as well as by his courting of Emma). even if they remain ostensively polite. Chapter VII. My theory posits three textual functions according to which the relationship between source and target texts can be described: the performative (textual illocution and perlocution). There appears to be an unwritten ‘translation norm’ (Toury 1995) that leads translators/editors/publishers to produce versions which sacrifice liveliness on the altar of a stereotyped idea of ‘classicality’. by the Box Hill narrator) to score social-conversational points against one another (or to mystify the reader and arouse his/her curiosity). was originally published in 1951 and has been reprinted several times by Garzanti.  . The Analysis For reasons of space as well as analytic convenience. Hatim 1998). the version by Pietro Meneghelli was first published by Newton & Compton in 1996. I compare the English text with three Italian translations. while the analysis of the translations is marked [TT]. owing to the translators’ misreading of Austen’s complexities. The three Italian versions span half a century: the earliest. Source and target texts are kept separated in the interests of reader comprehensibility . the similarities and differences between Austen’s Emma and its Italian translations are only analysed on the interpersonal plane. Of course. I confine myself to the central part of the interaction (E 334–7). In order to show what a fine balance is struck between saying and meaning. occasionally. and the locative function (textual deixis). these three translations are labelled G. Harris (1988). While these alterations and erasures make Austen’s Italian dialogue more wooden and less sparkling. the interpersonal (textual cooperation and politeness). Neubert 1968/1981.  For the implications of using the term ‘bi-text’. I outline the details of a ‘pragmatic theory of translation’ whereby I seek to renovate traditional linguistic theories and to unify a number of pragmatic intuitions on the nature of the translational process (cf. having been published by Mondadori in 2002. It would be particularly interesting to study the three target texts from a (temporal) ‘locative’ point of view.Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 131 In what follows. I use the tools of pragmatics to uncover the strategies employed by the Box Hill interactants (and. which is richest in conversational hit-andparry. In what follows. For the sake of brevity. in which that balance is often modified or lost. by Mario Praz. In a recent article (Morini 2008). which are merely used as distorting mirrors for their source text. while a more complete description is set aside for a more appropriate context. N and M. cf. directness and indirection. the one by Anna Luisa Zazo is the most recent. Fawcett 1998. the following bi-textual analysis does not amount to a full criticism of the three translations under discussion. The formal register and syntax in which all translations from Austen (and most Italian translations from the classics) are written creates an ‘archaizing’ impression (Holmes 1971/1988) that the original does not justify. in the present context they are very useful to highlight the characters’ indirect striving for status by way of ‘interlingual’ contrast (Jakobson 1959: 233). The pragmatic analysis of the original is marked [ST]. Reiss and Vermeer 1984/1991. should have that honour). presumably with anger and hurt pride (E 334).. one is faced here with a small breach of the maxim of Relation: why. At this. N 242. inferences triggered by the lack of a (syntactic. However. ‘Subplicit meanings’ are more general. [ST] Mr Knightley. ‘Is Miss Woodhouse sure that she would like to hear what we are all thinking of?’ (E 334). Bertuccelli Papi (2000: 147) defines as ‘subplicit’ all those implicit meanings which ‘may glide into the mind of the hearer as side effects of what is said or not said’: the narrator does not choose to tell us explicitly. desires to know what you are all thinking of’. M 371).. Mr Knightley means. Manner) are generally respected (Grice 1967/1991). but rather implicit in it. while the reactions of others (Mr Knightley. the fact that Mr Knightley does not choose to make his thoughts explicit is itself significant: good manners (what Brown and Levinson (1987) would call the  Bach’s ‘implicitures’ and Bertucelli Papi’s ‘subplicit meanings’ cover cases in which the implicit part of discourse cannot be satisfactorily described as an ‘implicature’. Relation. Piqued at the idea of ‘Miss Woodhouse’s presiding’ over the conversation in her place (she. thus making the narrator speak more explicitly than in the original. where Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its related maxims (Quantity. on the contrary. than ‘implicatures’: ‘Grice identified as implicated only those meanings which derive from the reflexive intention that they be recognized by the reader as intentionally meant by the speaker. I will label them subplicit: the term is meant to suggest that they may glide into the mind of the hearer as side effects of what is said or not said. to include in my definition of implicitness. and less intentional. It is a case of constituent underdetermination. should Mr Knightley ask whether Emma’s desire to know everybody’s thoughts is genuine? The answer. some of the characters laugh and answer ‘good-humouredly’. instead of voicing his thoughts as requested. ‘Implicitures’ are not ‘implicated’ by what is said. and therefore reacts rather strongly to the proposal by saying. but leaves us to infer. If one thinks of the conversation which is taking place as a cooperative effort. is that Mr Knightley is not being literal. Quality. semantic) element which has to be supplied by the receiver. by means of an open lie that ‘Miss Woodhouse . and narrowing down the reader’s scope for interpretation (G 276. . thus leaving aside a host of implicit meanings which I would like. being newly-wed. ‘thinks that you two are behaving shamefully’). this impliciture is cancelled by the addition of the missing constituent: the three translators write that Mrs Elton ‘si gonfiò di sdegno [swelled with indignation]’. [TT] In all the translations. Mrs Elton ‘swells’. Mrs Elton) are not quite so favourable. of course. who decides to involve the others in his bantering flirtation with Emma.132 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques [ST] The interaction is initiated and conducted by Frank Churchill. for different reasons from Mrs Elton’s. what it is Mrs Elton is swelling with. activating what Bach (1994) calls ‘implicitures’. and become the most relevant information that is retained of a whole message or be used as premises for the derivation of other implicated meanings’ (Bertuccelli Papi 2000: 147). and that his answer sets up conversational implicatures which might not be pleasant to some of the people involved (‘everybody’. that is. is as upset as the latter is by Frank Churchill’s flirtation with Emma. ). and. ‘which I should not have thought myself privileged to inquire into. [TT] The three translators try different ways to keep the same balance between what is said and what is meant in Mr Knightley’s speech. that he is really addressing. and as a consequence slightly more offensive. which.’ cried Mrs. to stress her own (unfairly . Another feature of indirection in Mr Knightley’s speech is the fact that he does not choose to address his addressee directly (‘Are you sure that you would like to hear . che le piacerebbe sentire a cosa stiamo pensando tutti? [Are you quite sure. preserve Knightley’s strategy. cf. in this Italian translation. M 372). thus avoiding open FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987: 211 ff. Another point of some pragmatic relevance is the translation of Mr Knightley’s ‘displacing’ technique. perhaps also in order to hint at the fact that it is not Emma but Frank Churchill. in this case. also Boase-Beier 2006): N chooses to make the exchange more straightforward than it is in English. M chooses the word ‘quello’ (‘E’ certa la signorina Woodhouse che le piacerebbe sapere quello a cui tutti noi stiamo pensando? [Is Miss Woodhouse sure that she would like to know the thing that we are all thinking of?]’.. and Emma’s answer to the effect that she had rather not hear their thoughts (Mr Weston’s and Harriet’s excepted). In this case. his rival in the fight for Emma’s love. Therefore. in her answer. Mr Knightley’s comment. if possible. G and M. Miss Woodhouse. by means of which he addresses one person while seeming to address another. the pragmatic force of which is kept more or less unaltered by two out of three translators: while G and N translate it quite literally with ‘cosa’ (G 276) or ‘che cosa’ (N 242). perhaps. Mr Knightley is not saying but ‘hinting’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 213) that Emma and Frank Churchill are behaving shamefully: the vagueness of the terms he uses (‘what we are all thinking of’) will allow Emma. implicates that it is one particular thought that they all have in mind. conversely. which humiliate people and/or force them to respond in the same vein. since as G and M show Mr Knightley’s indirect question can be reproduced in Italian. Brown and Levinson 1987: 226) by asking his question in the third person.Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 133 rules of ‘Politeness’) require that unpleasant comments be shrouded.’): he prefers to slightly ‘displace his hearer’ (another strategy for off-record comments. Mrs Elton resumes her onslaught: ‘It is a sort of thing. becomes slightly less indirect. as the Chaperon of the party – I never was in any circle – exploring parties – young ladies – married women – ’ (E 334) Like Mr Knightley. being more specific. [ST] After Knightley’s slightly cross comment. to laugh off the offensive implicature. in indirection.. while N prefers to turn Knightley’s question into a direct one (‘E’ proprio sicura. signorina Woodhouse. that you would like to hear what we are all thinking of?]’). Elton emphatically. A number of ‘off-record’ strategies are available which allow speakers to make these comments without seeming to make them. N’s choice must be interpreted as pertaining to the realm of ‘translational stylistics’ (Malmkjær 2004: 16. Mrs Elton employs an ‘off-record’ strategy in order to convey her disapproval of Emma’s behaviour. A sensitive point is the translation of ‘what’. Though. . Mr Knightley’s question. N 242). ‘amore mio’. Mrs Elton’s slight violation of Grice’s maxim of Relation (her statement does not clearly link up with Frank Churchill’s proposal. of course. It is also of some importance to note the title he uses to address her: ‘my love’. the three translators disregard the phonetic/graphic emphasis on you. the ‘mutterings’ that follow (as the narrator calls them) are easily understood (‘I never was in any circle where young ladies behaved in this way and robbed married women of their social rights’). though he prefers to murmur (audibly. some of the means by which ‘contrastive stress’ is produced. indeed – quite unheard of – but some ladies say any thing’).. N. it is not as common as it is in English to highlight a point of prosodic emphasis by the use of italics: therefore. all three translators have made Mrs Elton’s disparaging comments less explicit than they are in the original by erasing.. tries to compensate for the loss by using analogous Italian techniques. though it is me. two out of three translators render it literally (‘amor mio’. together with the ‘contrastive stress’ ‘emphatically’ expressed by her statement. G 276.134 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques neglected) social ‘consequence’. all three translators decide not to employ the graphic device. e. [TT] As in the case of Mrs Elton’s comments.. in cui non avrei ritenuto di avere il privilegio di indagare’.. makes the subject implicit (‘E’ un genere di cose .. [ST] Mr Elton comes to his wife’s aid. che io non mi sarei sentita autorizzata a chiedere [It is a sort of thing. i.. None of them. whereas one chooses to mute the social implications of ‘my love’ by the selection of a more socially acceptable term of endearment (‘mia cara [my dear]’... Once this ‘contrastive stress’. by adding a reinforcing tag (‘di mio’.. or by foregrounding the subject in final position (‘Non avrei ritenuto di avere il privilegio d’indagare. while translating almost exactly like G. In this case. N 242). in cui io non avrei ritenuto d’avere il privilegio d’indagare [It is a sort of thing . highlighted by the phonetic/ graphic emphasis on I. is caught. Brown and Levinson (1987) use the term ‘contrastive stress’ for the type of conversational technique that Mrs Elton uses here. Two of them. we are given to understand) rather than voice his opinions loudly. ‘on my part’). and reiterates her ‘contrastive stress’ (‘Every body knows what is due to you’). M: ‘E’ un genere di cose .g. or not reproducing. as the chaperon of the party. combine in building up a criticism of Emma and of the whole proceedings (‘Contrary to her. I would never dream of asking such questions. As regards the title used by Mr Elton. He makes his wife’s comments more explicit (‘Exactly so. however.. ‘Contrastive stress’ is a variety of the strategy of ‘presupposing’ which ‘in conjunction with a contextual violation of the Relevance maxim carries a criticism’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 217). or Emma’s parry). a small breach of the conventions presiding over the small society of Highbury. who should ask them’). signalling the couple’s bad manners and vulgar taste (E 334).e. keep the subject explicit (G: ‘E’ un genere di cose . [TT] In Italian. if anybody. M 372). and do not provide compensations. ‘per conto mio’. . M 372). which I would not have thought myself privileged to inquire into]’ (G 276). io’).which I would not have felt authorized to ask]’. rather than ‘my dear’. to preserve some ‘contrastive stress’. Lakoff 1973. you know. . including goals and values’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 103). or interprets too literally the phrase ‘I shall be sure’... M loses Miss Bates’s certainty (‘I shall be sure . and in doing so she even seeks everybody else’s approval through the use of a tag question and a final request for confirmation. G misinterprets. ‘giusto? [am I right?]’. the tag question and the final question. Miss Bates is trying to ‘maximize dispraise of self’.. At this. as well as the repetition of ‘shall/shan’t I/shall’. openly) that Emma ‘demands of you either one thing very clever . and decides to change his line of attack by lying (again. non è così? . One of the ‘maxims of politeness’ making up the PP is termed by Leech ‘modesty maxim’. Non pensate tutti che sarà così? [I will say three foolish things as soon as I open my mouth... I shall be sure to say three dull things as soon as ever I open my mouth. isn’t that so? . Two out of three translators use some such tag... the speaker has to append a tag phrase at the end of the sentence (‘vero? [isn’t that true?]’. or three things very dull indeed’ (E 335). and can be summed up in the twin imperatives ‘(a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self]’ (Leech 1983: 132). ‘confirmation tags’ are part of the bag of tricks of ‘female style’ (cf. but only one of them tries to recreate the linguistic means (the repetition of ‘shall-questions’) by which Miss Bates’s insistence is realized.’) but reproduces her insistence by a repetition-with-variation: ‘dirò tre cose sciocche appena aprirò la bocca.. shan’t I? – (looking round with the most goodhumoured dependence on every body’s assent) – Do not you all think I shall? (E 335) Miss Bates’s speech can be analysed by means of that ‘Politeness Principle’ (PP) which Leech (1983) has envisaged as complementing Grice’s ‘Cooperative Principle’ (CP) in directing face-to-face interaction.. the means by which she insistently seeks approval of her fool-role within the company. Non credete tutti che ci riuscirò? [I am sure I will say three dull things as soon as I open my mouth . or two things moderately clever . Do you not all believe I will manage to do it?]’ (G 277). N. This is one of the techniques described by Brown and Levinson as belonging to the category of ‘positive politeness’.. and makes no attempt to reproduce the repetition of ‘shall’: ‘Io son sicura di dire tre cose scipite appena apro bocca. Miss Bates sees an opening for a contribution to the conversation (the first one recorded by the narrator): she picks up the third of Emma’s/Churchill’s proposals and jokes that ‘That will just do for me. perhaps out of forgetfulness.. Do you not all believe it will be so?]’ (M 372–3).Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 135 [ST] Frank Churchill understands that some of his fellow speakers are offended. 1975). whereby the speaker claims ‘common ground’ with the hearer(s): Miss Bates wants to indicate ‘that S [the speaker] and H [the hearer(s)] belong to the same set of persons who share specific wants... are the focal points of her speech.  As seen in Chapter 1. in order to ask for approval/confirmation after a question.. non è così? . Therefore. ‘non è così? [isn’t that so?]’). [TT] In Italian. preceded. though a slight blush showed that it could pain her]’ (G 277).” answered his son. [ST] Quite unprovoked (at least by Miss Bates). Some implicatures are set off by that double ‘could’. His son. apparently not having noticed Emma’s FTA or Miss Bates’s pained reaction. M 373). Miss Bates. I am afraid. does not immediately catch Emma’s meaning. according to the narrator. but a light blush showed that it could cause anguish]’. might be that Miss Bates cannot be angry because she is not in a position to be. sir. Emma. due to Frank’s adoption by his mother’s brother and sister-in-law after his mother’s death. offers to make a conundrum (‘How will a conundrum reckon?’). . rather than ‘father’ (or a more familiar ‘daddy’ or ‘papa’): a title which reminds us of the different conventions of address of Austen’s times. E 335). the slight ambiguity of ‘could’ activates implicatures which have to do with power relationships in the small society of Highbury. makes the narrator’s ambiguous description of Miss Bates’s feelings more explicit: in this version. [ST] Miss Bates expresses her ‘pain’ through a veiled criticism of Emma. however. [TT] Two out of three translators keep the ambiguity (and the implicatures) of ‘could’ by the use of the analogous Italian verb ‘potere’ (G: ‘non potè farla stizzire. Mr Weston. though it may have been enough to cause her some discomfort (N: ‘non bastò a farla irritare. On the whole. Thus. M: ‘non avrebbe potuto suscitare in lei collera. sebbene un lieve rossore mostrasse che poteva addolorarla [it could not irritate her. Emma commits the only open FTA of the whole exchange by stating that Miss Bates’s only difficulty might reside in the number of dull things allowed (‘only three at once’). by another illustration of the ‘modesty maxim’ (‘I must make myself very disagreeable. but when she does ‘it could not anger. ma un leggero rossore mostrò che poteva suscitare pena [it could not have caused anger. the narrator’s hint at the social and financial distance between the heiress. and renders her final question exactly like G (N 242). but also of the long severance between father and son. Here it is of some importance to note that Frank Churchill calls his father ‘sir’. or she would not have said such a thing to an old friend’). – “but we shall be indulgent – especially to any one who leads the way. though a slight blush showed that it could pain her’ (E 335). accepts the offer. thus breaching.136 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques totally omits Miss Bates’s first question plus tag. caught by those conscious of social relationships in the novel. but another implicated meaning. Miss Bates. Frank Churchill. one of Grice’s maxims of Quantity (‘Make your contribution as informative as is required’) or of Manner (‘Avoid ambiguity’) (Grice 1967/1991: 26–7). though complaining about his father’s choice of genre (‘“Low. The third. N 242). however. because the narrator does not explain why Emma’s meaning could not anger Miss Bates. In this Italian translation. and the poor spinster. very low.”’. is suppressed. The most likely meaning of ‘could’ is that Miss Bates cannot be angry at Emma’s words because she is too good-natured to do so. Miss Bates is less good-humouredly insistent in seeking agreement in the Italian versions than in the original: her style becomes more formal than ‘female’. anche se un lieve rossore fece capire che poteva averle dato un po’ fastidio’. or exploiting. Emma’s joke is ‘not enough’ to vex Miss Bates. You. but the others are less enthusiastic: some look ‘very stupid about it’. we will discover later. thus activating implicatures which become clear only when the solution is disclosed.. whereas N bridges the gap by writing ‘papà’ (‘daddy’. or ‘Avoid ambiguity’). In both cases. and Mr Weston goes on: the conundrum consists of a compliment to Emma (‘What two letters of the alphabet are there. you will never guess. more likely. The other two catch only half of Mr Weston’s meaning. – Do you understand?’). Perfection should not have come quite so soon. or both. I am certain. only by one out of three translators (G: ‘E’ troppo una constatazione di fatto [It is too much the observation of a fact]’. accompanied by another pair of implicit compliments to the same. (to Emma). “son sicuro che non l’indovinerete mai” [“Ah. he complains that it is not very clever because it is ‘too much a matter of fact’ – giving his listeners to understand that it is too simple. that after such a start nobody can . An important element of Mr Knightley’s very indirect criticism of the whole drift of the conversation is the verb phrase ‘knocked up’: he means. and Mr Knightley comments: ‘This explains the sort of clever thing that is wanted. and the answer could be ‘everybody’. – Em – ma. that express perfection?. but. but also hinting that Emma’s perfection is not an opinion but a fact. M 373). Mr Weston comments that ‘you will never guess. N 243)..” a Emma. and thus lose the hinted compliment: in M. [ST] Emma is of course gratified when she understands. intricate web of covert compliments or offences running through the grain of the conversation gets lost in translation. and Mr.Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 137 [TT] The three translators react differently to Frank’s choice of title: M is the only one who keeps the same distance between the two characters by the use of a term with the same social value (‘signore’. You. Weston has done very well for himself. in N that it is too ‘elementare’ (‘elementary’. by Miss Bates’s humiliation at Emma’s hands). or reproduced. we are again faced with a case of constituent underdetermination triggering an ‘impliciture’ (Bach 1994): we might ask. for instance: ‘“Ah. or ‘Frank Churchill’. Mr Weston’s first reference to Emma’s perfection.M. literally. a thread of the fine. Before proposing the conundrum to the others. however. Mr Knightley voices his irritation (caused also. ‘wanted by whom?’. G 277).’ (E 336) As for the first sentence. ‘Emma’. one or two of the sub-maxims of Grice’s maxim of Manner (‘Avoid obscurity of expression’. but he must have knocked up every body else. [TT] Of course. Mr Weston breaches. while remaining vague enough not to be openly offensive. and his jealousy. G 277). “I am sure will never guess”]’. G 277). but that she is too modest to catch the compliment. M 373). [ST] Emma insists that Mr Weston’s conundrum will be very welcome. G halves the distance by writing ‘babbo’ (‘father’.” to Emma. When Emma protests that she has no idea about the solution. will never guess’ (E 336) – thus implicating not that Emma is too slow-witted to understand. is understood. all three translators keep Mr Weston’s hint at Emma’s modesty (G. N 242). Mr Weston says that perhaps the conundrum is too ‘facile’ (‘easy’. and A. ‘papa’. ‘straightforward’. Once again. non l’indovinerete mai. and exploits. Voi. that he is being ambiguous in order to suggest implicated meanings. therefore. and proposes a walk. two out of three translators lose it (M: ‘non può non aver messo fuori gioco tutti gli altri [he cannot help having sidelined all the others]’.. N: ‘Questo spiega il genere di cosa brillante che si desidera [This explains the sort of witty thing that is wanted]’. and states the reasons for her disapproval of what is taking place as a general rule (‘These kind of things are very well at Christmas. M 374). as set off by the first part of his speech. whereas one makes it Mr Knightley’s explicit meaning (G: ‘deve aver sfinito tutti gli altri [he must have exhausted all the others]’). Mr Elton’s remark means that he has. but quite out of place. which I was not at all pleased with. or any other young lady. but also more suggestive of hidden. I really cannot attempt . I can say nothing This sense of ‘knock up’ is now obsolete.. [ST] There follows a rather long comment of Mrs Elton’s. An old married man – quite good for nothing. An abominable puppy!’). G 278. N 243). one must suppose that he also is exploiting Grice’s maxim of Manner.. ‘waking or calling someone by knocking on the door’. I protest I must be excused . According to the Macmillan English Dictionary (2002).. nothing entertaining to say – but of course. more or less on the same lines as her previous contributions. unpleasant meanings (M: ‘Questo spiega che cosa si intenda con qualcosa di intelligente [This explains what is meant by “something clever”]’. relates an anecdote aimed at showing she has admirers as well (‘I had an acrostic once sent to me upon my own name. E 336). I am not one of those who have witty things at every body’s service. Her husband agrees with her.Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques 138 hope to do better.    ‘State the FTA [face-threatening act] as a general rule’ is one of the strategies of ‘negative politeness’ as described by Brown and Levinson (1987: 206–7). generally. which is the way to entertain her: I have nothing to say in her praise. though the Italian verb form replacing ‘is wanted’ does not presuppose a missing constituent (G.’ (E 336) If understood literally.. Those implicated meanings. or ‘making a woman pregnant’. but his lexical choice triggers subplicit meanings which are not quite so flattering (‘this has exhausted all the others’). I do not pretend to be a wit’). in my opinion. i. renders ‘is wanted’ in such a way as to make Mr Knightley’s speech more generic. however. censures Mr Weston’s conundrum (‘Oh! for myself. He also adds a covertly offensive remark: ‘I have nothing to say that can entertain Miss Woodhouse. [TT] Two out of three translators render the first sentence very literally.  . when one is exploring about the country in summer’.e. would be very offensive (‘Someone praised Miss Woodhouse. when one is sitting round the fire. ‘knocking up’ is currently used with the informal or slang meanings of ‘producing something quickly and easily’. N: ‘ha messo nei guai tutti gli altri [he got everybody else into trouble]’). She implicitly contrasts her behaviour with Emma’s. The third. As for the subplicit meaning in ‘knocked up’. I knew who it came from. however. mostly ignore Mrs Elton’s ‘contrastive stress’. However. [TT] The three translators. and then makes use of the socially acceptable technique of blaming himself (‘An old married man – quite good for nothing’. in the original. M 374). . one might also catch in Mrs Elton’s speech a subplicit strike at Emma: ‘I am really tired of talking  Grice (1967/1991: 39) lists a series of features a conversational implicature must possess in order to be ‘what it is’. thus making Mr Elton’s evasive technique less evident. if the form of utterance that usually carries it is used in a context that makes it clear that the speaker is opting out’. both her anecdote and her remarks on conundrums and summer excursions. by the insertion of a comma between his initial disparaging comment and the clause he adds in order to cancel the offensive implicature (‘. given all that has just been said. It may be explicitly canceled. but we are not moving’). Grice 1967/1991: 27). because in Mrs Elton’s world and ours one cannot be exploring while one is not moving. because he immediately tries to ‘cancel’ the implicatures he set off by ‘adding some additional premises to the original ones’ (‘or any other young lady’.. or it may be contextually canceled. as on the previous occasions. N is to all effects identical). N 243).Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 139 to entertain her’): perhaps Mr Elton realizes he is in danger of committing a FTA. M: ‘a servizio di chiunque [at anybody’s service]’. is the translators’ rendering of ‘at every body’s service’ – a vague. a very subtle effect is obtained. o qualunque altra giovane signora [I have nothing to say that can entertain Miss Woodhouse. to have slightly misunderstood Mrs Elton (‘Non sono di quelle che hanno battute su tutti a disposizione [I am not one of those women who have jokes about everybody at their command]’. M 374). [ST] Mrs Elton agrees ‘with all my heart’ to walk with her husband. or any other young lady’). ambiguous comment implicating that one must be indeed ready to serve everybody if one chooses to be at Emma Woodhouse’s service. ironic side to her meaning (‘We are supposed to be exploring. Since this statement superficially breaches Grice’s first maxim of Quality (‘Do not say what you believe to be false’. Two out of three translators catch the implicature and emphasize it almost to the point of making it Mrs Elton’s literal meaning (G: ‘a disposizione di chiunque [at anybody’s disposal]’ (G 278).. the third seems. One of these features is what Levinson (1983: 114) calls ‘cancellability’ or ‘defeasibility’: ‘a generalized conversational implicature can be canceled in a particular case. A point of some interest. ‘I am really tired of exploring so long on one spot’ (E 337). or any other young lady]’ (G 278). Levinson 1983: 114). Two out of three translators keep the comma (G: ‘Io non ho niente da dire che possa divertire Miss Woodhouse. because. Leech 1983: 132). of course. she says. They reproduce. whereas the third prefers to remove it (M: ‘Non ho nulla da dire che possa divertire la signorina Woodhouse o un’altra giovane signora [I have nothing to say that can entertain Miss Woodhouse or another young lady]’.. which focuses on the repetition and highlighting of the first-person pronoun. one must assume that there is a non-literal. instead. As for Mr Elton’s speech. by the addition of a clause that states or implies that the speaker has opted out. spoke now. Mrs Elton’s exploitation of the maxim of Quality. slightly modified by another (N: ‘La signorina Fairfax. chooses to speak now. and a few chapters. [TT] All three translators keep Frank Churchill’s hints. Jane Fairfax responds.’ said he. [ST] The Eltons go for a walk. ‘You were speaking. thus losing the conversational implicatures which constitute Mrs Elton’s last volley against Emma before sounding the retreat. for ‘many a man has committed himself on a short acquaintance. but he is doing so by stating his FTA as a general rule. She recovered her voice. Two out of three translators. the implicit and subplicit meanings activated by Mrs Elton will conceivably be kept if her ironic statement is translated literally. who had seldom spoken before’. is kept by one (G: ‘Miss Fairfax.. sets off more than a single conversational implicature.. though only one person in the whole company can understand his covert meaning. adding that it is a lucky couple that can be said to have married happily on so short an acquaintance in Bath ‘or any public place’. In other words. keep so close to the original that they formulate an awkward sentence (G: ‘Son proprio stanca di esplorare per tanto tempo uno stesso posto [I am really tired of exploring so long one same spot]’ (G 278). but they react variously to the narrator’s introduction of Jane Fairfax’s speech. however. M 374). and rued it all the rest of his life’ (E 337). in connection with the fact that Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill’s attachment has not yet been disclosed (within a few days. That final. N to all effects the same). He is hinting. Frank Churchill makes an ironic comment on ‘how well they suit one another’. indeed. The third. at his own attachment to Jane Fairfax. except among her own confederates.140 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques so long about the same subject’. undoubtedly. parlò adesso [Miss Fairfax. and her words are recorded by the narrator for the first time in this conversation. che aveva di rado parlato prima . G 278). ‘Such things do occur. foregrounded. che fino a quel momento . Frank Churchill turned towards her to listen. who had seldom spoken before. Emma and the reader are going to learn that this conversation has helped precipitate events and hurry that disclosure): it is the functional contrast placed upon that final ‘spoke now’ (which is also foregrounded by virtue of its position) in the first sentence: if ‘Miss Fairfax. by leaving her primary meaning indeterminate.. who had seldom spoken before . gravely. turns Mrs Elton’s paradox into a logical statement conforming to the Cooperative Principle (M: ‘Sono stanca di partecipare a un’escursione restando sempre nello stesso luogo [I am tired of taking part in an excursion while always remaining on the same spot]’. spoke now]’. in such a way as to alert us that what she is about to say is of some moment: Miss Fairfax. ‘spoke now’.. there must be some good reason to do so.’ – She was stopped by a cough. [TT] In Italian. and as soon as they are ‘out of hearing’. (E 337) One thing must be noted in the narrator’s introduction of Jane Fairfax’s speech. as ‘ubbidienza’ (obedience). [TT] None of the three translators renders ‘submission’ literally as ‘sottomissione’. ora disse: [Miss Fairfax. M 375). if he so wishes. [ST] Frank Churchill does not answer. that it can be only weak. Grice 1967/1991: 26). [ST] Jane Fairfax has perfectly understood Frank Churchill’s technique of covering his meaning in general terms. A hasty and imprudent attachment may arise – but there is generally time to recover from it afterwards. indeed will be understood.. who up to that moment had spoken but seldom . but ‘merely looked. a small breach of Grice’s maxim of Relation: why should he bow ‘in submission’. also quite literally. che prima aveva parlato pochissimo . and employs it in her turn in order to give him to understand that. The third translator interprets it as ‘assent’. and if he were not admitting that she won? The answer. and virtually putting an end to the general conversation. and bowed in submission’ (E 337). he is free from all obligations: ‘I was only going to observe. the narrator’s description of his motives for bowing seems slightly exaggerated – once again. irresolute characters . which may be said to amount to a breach of Grice’s second maxim of Quantity (‘Do not make your contribution more informative than is required’.. ‘What I mean is’). or make a courteous bow. according to the narrator. weaker expression which does not activate as clearly the same conversational implicatures (‘Quello che intendo dire [What I mean to say]’. that though such unfortunate circumstances do sometimes occur both to men and women. who had spoken very little before . thus highlighting Frank Churchill’s good manners (G: ‘s’inchinò con deferenza [bowed deferentially]’ (G 279).. M 375). thus presenting Frank Churchill’s gesture as an acknowledgment that Jane Fairfax is right (M: ‘si limitò a guardarla e inchinarsi in segno di assenso [He merely looked at her and bowed in assent]’. an oppression for ever. By using more words than are here necessary (‘I mean’. N 244).. by someone in particular. now said]’. G 279. or. if there has not been a struggle between him and Jane Fairfax. N 244).Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 141 aveva parlato raramente . ora parlò [Miss Fairfax. (E 337) A focal point in her speech is the verb phrase ‘I would be understood to mean’. does not merely bow. I would be understood to mean. . N to all effects the same).. Two of them interpret ‘submission’ as ‘deference’. whereas one employs a shorter.. What is significant is that Frank Churchill. Though no doubt signalling Frank Churchill’s politeness. here. now spoke]’.. before turning to Emma for another flirting spell.. but bows ‘in submission’.. [TT] Two out of three translators render Jane Fairfax’s words by an expression which conveys her insistence on being understood (‘Vorrei che si capisse [I’d like it to be understood]’. M 375).. all but lost by the third (M: ‘La signorina Fairfax. of course – the conversational implicature activated by the narrator’s words – is that there has been a struggle. Jane Fairfax is indicating that her choice of words is meaningful: the conversational implicature. who will suffer an unfortunate acquaintance to be an inconvenience. and that he is admitting that his lover/rival won. is that she wants to be understood. I cannot imagine them to be very frequent. the final score is almost as indecipherable for the English pragmatician as it is for the Italian reader. answers his rhetorical question): partly. his are seemingly more dignified and other-centred (at least grammatically: he never says ‘I’). the Italian reader vaguely understands that points are being scored and hits are being parried in a complex game of attack and defense. or simply listening. An attempt at assigning points. but also. many of her comments seem to be meant for her husband rather than for the whole group (‘Her mutterings were chiefly to her husband’. As a consequence. If compared with Mrs Elton’s. ensures that he is listened to when he speaks. of ‘strategic dominance’. Her target is Emma – of whose position as everybody’s favourite she is envious – and she manages to offend her chosen opponent while stopping short of committing any open FTAs. at least on one occasion (‘Is Miss Woodhouse sure that she would like to hear what we are all thinking of?’ E 334). Other characters seem less intent on scoring points than on playing games.142 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques The Final Score The Italian translators often lose track of Austen’s fine balance between explicit and implicit meanings. the goals of each interactant may not be immediately clear. because it calls for somebody else’s . However. In conversation. E 334). Mr Knightley also has his own axes to grind. though one suspects that the true goal of his conversational moves might be scoring points against his rival. if the interlingual passage tends to blur some of the points. is doubtful: because after all. this may be due to the fact that while Mrs Elton’s mutterings are peevish and self-centred. because scoring points is clearly what this conversation is about. can and must be made. his irritation seems to be directed against Emma. On the other hand. he attacks Emma and Mr Weston: whatever his primary target. and the Eltons are covertly made fun of by Frank Churchill (and shunned by Jane Fairfax) as soon as they go for a walk. The game of conversation is much more complicated than a tennis match. The one character who attempts to score most consistently is Mrs Elton. as seen above. being of little help. In Austen’s dialogue. But even being playful or complimentary can entail scoring points. for one. In a tennis match. however. complimenting each other. the chair umpire determines the exact outcome of every shot – give or take a few balls near the lines – and the final score is usually not a debatable matter. Her gain in status. and every participant will have his/her own idea of the outcome. we remain in the dark as to who actually won – the narrator-umpire. On a couple of occasions. twice backed by her husband. while on other occasions the attack becomes too straightforward. one must not forget that Knightley’s position of authority. turn-taking and goal-seeking may be more formalized than even in Austen’s own society: but while we understand that various characters are trying to score points and/or to ‘win’ the conversation. Frank Churchill. however. but some of the actions become less clear. Mr Knightley’s onslaught seems even more direct. too ingenuous (and the reader is left wondering why nobody reacts more strongly). Mr Knightley’s remarks are perhaps heard more deferentially by the others (Emma. the Eltons are definitively marginalized from the main plot (and Mrs Elton is made fun of by the narrator just before the close of the novel). she may think she is selecting a soft target. In the end. thus obtaining his ‘submission’. this is because while we can make surmises on the speakers’ goals. But after all. in group interactions. and the outcome is a change in an undesired direction (Knightley’s censure). In this case. while Emma gains Mr Knightley’s censure (‘How could you be so unfeeling to Miss Bates? How could you be so insolent in your wit to a woman of her character. points are scored by unexpected players. after their envious mutterings. the reverse happens: a positively evaluated source (Emma) conforms less closely than expected to a societal norm. assigning points in this way would mean judging the battle only by the outcome of the war: whereas the battle. (1) when the enacted behaviour is better or more preferred than that which was expected in the situation. remains a tale told by an idiot. after her firm repartee. As noted above. independent of those of the speaker’ (Brown 1996: 201). if seen from the ranks or from a neighbouring hill. Emma ‘submits’ to Mr Knightley’s ‘superior judgment’. are often assigned by the audience. And on a couple of occasions. and situation?’ E 339). the narrator tells us little about the listeners’ goals. and perhaps meaningless... it is interesting to mention Michael Burgoon’s ‘Language Expectancy Theory’. 11 As Gillian Brown has noted. or situational exigencies’ (Burgoon 1995: 30).’ In part. it is very difficult.11 But above all. age. to decide ‘who won. . each may convince him/herself that he/she has gained status. full of sound and fury. but in the end it is perhaps only her victim who gains status. according to which ‘change in the direction desired by an actor occurs when positive violations of expectations occur .10 Another unexpected winner is Jane Fairfax. ‘listeners may have intentions and goals in listening which are. Jane Fairfax manages to ‘tame’ Frank Churchill and marry him. societal norms. or about their reactions – and ‘status’ points. to a greater or lesser degree. When Emma commits a FTA against Miss Bates. who answers Frank Churchill’s ‘general’ face-threatening remarks in the same vein. and his/her vision need have no relation whatsoever with anybody else’s. one is tempted to look at how the novels unfold to distinguish the winners from the losers: after her blunder on Box Hill. 10 In connection with this episode. or (2) when negatively evaluated sources conform more closely than expected to cultural values. the difficulty is due to the inherent complexity and ambivalent character of spoken interaction: each participant can form a different judgment of what is going on. signifying what little meaning the scholar manages to find in it or invest it with. and on the degree to which these goals are achieved.Winning the War of Conversation in Emma 143 contribution or reciprocation. This page has been left blank intentionally . until it is a strip of land newly surrounded by water. as Milton in English poetry. especially in the field of letters. It is more or less the same with criticism. and in presenting itself as the only true interpretation. in English fiction. to do nothing at all. linguistic or of any other description: when one merges the sum of one’s insight into a unified analysis.Conclusion The War of Ideas and the Sea of Possibility In Larkin’s poem ‘The Old Fools’.. the oblivion incumbent on old age is contrasted with the oblivion preceding birth. every reading submerges or subsumes all the others. (Parker 1998: 14) Whatever a reader thinks Mansfield Park is up to at any moment. and with every second of existence that beach loses a grain of sand. At the end of this enterprise. (Southam 1987: 230) [Jane Austen] is.. (Lascelles 1939: 76) But the difficulty of Emma is never overcome. [Austen] examines the power relationships that develop between women-as-writers and as-readers. (Gardiner 1995: 151) Amelia and Mansfield Park highlight what was occluded in the earlier works. all the lost possibilities can at most be hinted at in passing. (Mudrick 1952: 155) In Mansfield Park. in fact of her unconsciousness . cool light of day. it is time to reinstate all the remaining options: The key to Jane Austen’s fortune with posterity has been in part the extraordinary grace of her facility. more vociferously espousing traditional values yet more clearly exposing their deficiencies. moral and emotional instruction. the one completely conscious and almost unerring artist. still more challengingly. (Trilling 1957/1991: 122) The thesis of Mansfield Park is severely moral: that one world. and the institutions that reduce their options and make them marginal. (Tandon 2003: 195) The themes and techniques of Pride and Prejudice accomplish their eighteenthcentury didactic end. ‘all the time merging with a unique endeavour / To bring to bloom the million-petalled flower / Of being here’ (Larkin 1988: 196): to exist is to solidify a sea of possibility into a beach of actuality. is categorically superior to any other. representing the genteel orthodoxy of Jane Austen’s time. it is all too likely to do something different – or. (Southam 1987: 250) The world of Emma’s fancy fades in the clear. at the same time that they . they can also be pieced together to form the complete Austen jigsaw puzzle. The abundance of critical versions of Jane Austen is a good thing. despite the fact that Austen’s novels have long been considered “classic” in Roland Barthes’ sense of the word. educated only to be sexually attractive and submissive to her husband. just as it is very difficult to decide who wins the conversational tennis-match on Box Hill. slippery creature (Tandon). (Gard 1992: 6) Yet Austen’s characters relentlessly seek that “complete truth. MP can be read as a paean for Old Tory England (Mudrick). if not about the novels themselves. it is close to impossible. to take an example often trotted out. not .. rather than supplanting them: it provides a (technical) framework which accounts for the existence of a plethora of interpretations. (Mellor 2000: 103) .. The ideologies are there. Maria Edgeworth. (Fergus 1983: 9) Jane Austen. all of these perceptive critics tell us something about reading Jane Austen’s novels.146 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques create a degree of intimacy with the characters and an absorption in the world of the novel surpassed only by the reader’s response to the novels which follow it. the analysis offered in the present study supplements all preceding readings.. Jane Austen’s novels are didactic. is synonymous with richness.. Lascelles’s ‘bright and sparkling’ reading of E reflects a quality which many readers find in that most difficult and ‘undecidable’ of novels (Trilling). as both (Parker) or as a post-structuralist. and have been viewed in that light throughout the present study. with a kind of paralysed seriousness. took the female conduct books of Gregory. Mansfield Park. we cannot accept a version of Jane Austen – of all people – that characterises her . in the end. and free from didacticism (Fergus. Henry James’s unconscious grace and facility reflect a typical ‘first impression’ elicited by Jane Austen – though grace and facility are probably obtained at the price of great labour. as a mere inert reflector of the commonplaces of her age – as one who. to separate winners and losers. Their attempts to impose epistemological stability on their world mimic the reader’s own search for determinate readings of the texts.. Even though Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques stands in sharp opposition to those studies that treat novels as if they were pamphlets. At the very least. yet none of these truths can be finally relied upon (Patteson). the war is there. Gisborne etc. in critical thought. it does not wish to suggest that there are no ideologies at war in Austen’s novels.” .. Emma and Persuasion. Mary Shelley. Therefore. Fordyce. Gard). but owing to Austen’s ‘chameleonic’ ability. Plethora means fullness – and fullness. anti-didactic. as a manifesto of feminist subversion (Gardiner). They contain a vast number of ‘truths’. (Patteson 1981: 455) While all these can be seen as alternative readings. Ann Radcliffe…calculatedly devoted their fiction to challenging the repressive sexual politics promoted by the conduct books of the day. Mellor. in a conscious effort of ‘unerring art’ (Farrer). a politics that erected a patriarchal domestic ideology that demanded that the female be kept at home. That enterprise has never really succeeded. they augment our understanding of Austen’s works. Katherine Mansfield’s famous epistolary remark resounds as a final warning note: The truth is that every true admirer of her novels cherishes the happy thought that he alone – reading between the lines – has become the secret friend of the author. Mary Crawford or Sir Thomas. but above all because critical richness is (almost) always a mirror of literary richness – of a primary vitality engendering a secondary one. watch the theatricals in MP like Edmund Bertram. at the very least. Maybe because she feels a secret sympathy for the characters that she ought to reprimand. But then again. ‘Jane Austen’ – that. embedded. of the social and intellectual contexts in which they were conceived. hidden behind her characters and her narrators-as-characters.Conclusion 147 merely because diversity of opinion is a symptom of intellectual vitality. By so doing. judge the characters in E like Emma or Mr Knightley. Because she prefers to leave the vulgar work of extracting meanings from her novels to someone else. envisaged as possibilities in the originals. it is because they are all contained. Or maybe – but this is just one of many possible explanations – because she wishes to remain hidden. Maybe because her fictional structures go against the grain of her ideological purposes. when all is said and done. In other words. Critics read the events of S&S like Elinor or Marianne. or. Fanny Price. is the ideological beginning and end of this study – remains in the background. In this plethora of primary and secondary readings. if there are so many interpretations of Austen’s novels. Maybe because it is the nature of all fiction to dethrone the author in the narrator’s name. (Mansfield 1928: 335) . This page has been left blank intentionally . Minneapolis/Manchester. ——— (2002). Oxford University Press (E). ——— (1951/2002). The Discourse of Negotiation. Oxford University Press (NA / LS / TW / S). K.. The Dialogic Imagination. ——— (1813/2004). ed. Austin. Emma. (1962).J. ——— (2003). B. 9. University of Texas Press. Jahrhunderts. Roma. Emma. Oxford University Press (P&P). Milano. . Ravenna. J. ‘Negotiation in the Workplace: The View from a Political Linguist’. Anna Luisa Zazo. Roma. Oxford University Press (MP). Clarendon.V. 41–58. London. London. Oxford University Press (P). ——— (1815/1998). ed. Battaglia. (1995).. Battaglia. Bell. The Accomplished Youth: Containing A Familiar View of the True Principles of Morality and Politeness. University of Minnesota and Manchester University Press. An Essay on Conversation. Centaurus. Ohio State University Press. ——— (1814/2003).S. Ravenna. & W. und 20. Anon.B. Studies of Language in the Workplace. Longo. Newton & Compton (N). Oxford. 125–62. Bakhtin.C. trans. Journal of Pragmatics. Critical Essays on Jane Austen.. Jane Austen: Oggi e ieri.L. Garzanti (G). Bamford. Oxford University Press. in A. ——— (2004). Longo. ed. Emma. ‘Jane Austen’s “Chamaleonic” Art and A Poetics of Postmodernism’. (1992).. Prosodic. Mondadori (M). Mansfield Park. Janney (1991). Columbus. eds (2004). ——— (1996/2002). and trans. ‘The “irresponsibility” of Jane Austen’. J. and J. Bayley. pp. in B. (1994). Firth. M.Bibliography Anderson. By a Member of the Inner Temple and of the University of Cambridge. Northanger Abbey / Lady Susan / The Watsons / Sanditon. Emma. Pfaffenweiler. Appleton. Anon. Caryl Emerson. Austen. ——— (2002). H. in B. Selected Letters.W. trans. La zitella illetterata: Parodia e ironia nei romanzi di Jane Austen. trans. London. (1962). Oxford University Press (S&S). officina edizioni. Mind. 521–49. The Fabric of Dialogue. Mario Praz. and Kinesic Emotive Contrasts in Speech’. pp. ——— (1963/1984). pp. Persuasion. H. Pietro Meneghelli. pp. How To Do Things with Words. ‘Conversational Impliciture’. Evaluation in oral and written academic discourse. Routledge & Kegan Paul. J. Milano.. Pride and Prejudice. Arndt. 37–46. Holquist. (1934–41/1981). D. Pergamon. C. Southam. G. Vivien Jones. Die Darstellung der Gesellschaftskonversation im englischen Roman des 19. Emerson and M. M. Sense and Sensibility. Jane Austen’s Novels. ——— (1818/2004). (1821). 15. (1968). Whittaker. (1983). trans. Austin. Oxford. ed. Bach. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. L. ‘Verbal. B. (1811). (1811/1992). pp. ed. Animated Conversations. 1–20. and R. Crosby and Co. Babb. Bertuccelli Papi..W. 362–72. Bits of Ivory. Baton Rouge. 29–51. The Art of Conversation. in D. Blake. Booth. Narrative Techniques in Jane Austen’s Fiction. (1995). (1988). (1988). Burrows. Cameron. J. J.. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. Social Change and Literary Form. Edinburgh University Press. M. Brown.E.R. Oxford. in C. (1999). John Benjamins. Black. ‘Persuasion: From prudence to romance’. Revista Alicantina de Studios Ingleses. Cambridge. D. (1988). 97–152. (2006). 141–79. (2004). I Know That You Know That I Know: Narrating Subjects from Moll Flanders to Marnie. Zimmermann.)/London. Harvard University Press. G. eds. Politeness. Hillsdale (NJ). J.. Tübingen. (1993). C. Some Universals in Language Usage. pp.A. Max Niemeyer.P. ‘Language Expectancy Theory: Elaboration. Butte. ‘A Plan-Based Approach to Strategic Communication’. L. M. Cambridge University Press. Oxford. Burgoon. Jane Austen and the War of Ideas. Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Pescara. (1991). Cambridge (Mass. Marroni. P. Edizioni Tracce.. Michigan State University Press. M. The Cognitive Bases of Interpersonal Communication. Listeners and Communication. East Lansing. and Extension’. Explication. Brooke. in F. Clarendon Press. D. Jane Austen’s Novels. Brown. Harmondsworth. (1961). The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll. Communication and Social Influence Processes. Bublitz. Clarendon Press. Carroll. (1995). pp. Jane Austen and the Theatre. Billi. M. (1973).F. W. W. in C. Cambridge University Press. (1987). Sage Publications. (1979). 1. ‘Reflections on Some Approaches to Style and Stylistics’. Boase-Beier. pp. Berger. D. ed. The Ohio University Press. Pragmatic Stylistics. Speakers. (1995).S. Computation into Criticism. Butler. A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method. Uhlig and R. Dalla parte di Jane Austen. 7–18. Hewes. Edizioni ETS. (1975).R. Columbus. Jane Austen: Illusion and Reality. (2002).150 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Berger. Louisiana State University Press. Cambridge. C.F. Berger and M. (2006). Explorations in Discourse Analysis. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Pisa. L. Implicitness in Text and Discourse. (2000). Manchester University Press. and S. Brown. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi. Polity Press. G. Burke. Brewer. pp. Levinson (1987). pp. Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chicago/London. Hambledon and London. E. N. ‘British Conversational Culture and its Reflection in Literature’. London/New York. Byrne. . eds. University of Chicago Press. (2000). Brown. Penguin. ed. P. P. Burgoon. Anglistentag 1990 Marburg. Milano. pp. Downes. Eco. Blackwell. Lector in fabula. Oxford. Alessandria. ((R)Evolutions in Evaluation). McCarthy (1996). ‘The Language of Felt Experience: Emotional. ‘Introduction’. Devlin. in S. Penguin. Women Writing About Money: Women’s Fiction in England 1790–1820.Bibliography 151 Carter. Oxford University Press. pp. Tavistock Publications. ‘Semantic Tangles and the Generation of Narrative Structure in Northanger Abbey’. (2000). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding. Baltimore/London. J. S. B. (1994). 73–95. Bompiani. Longman. 99–121. London. Jane Austen and the State. pp. (1998).H. and A. Edizioni dell’Orso. ‘Presumption and Translation’. London/New York. The Ohio State University Press. (2000). Coates. Pescara. Hunston and G. Hypocrisy and the Politics of Politeness: Manners and Morals from Locke to Austen. (1975). J. Dendrinos. 16(4). in L. (1849–50/1994). Ribeiro Pedro. (1977). Fawcett. 20(1). pp. Eggins. Ehrenpreis. Evaluative and Intuitive’. Macmillan. ed. M. (1994). Jaworski. Analysing Casual Conversation. (1990). Evaluation in Text. David Copperfield. The Improvement of the Estate... Columbus. . C. Dossena. Thompson. Basingstoke/London. 7–16. 389–401. Clevedon. (1983). ed. Swift. Berlin/New York.. Textus. London. ‘Giving Street Directions: The Silent Role of Women’. Dussinger. Dickens. 215–38.. Literary and Linguistic Computing. U. Pope. (1995). Hickey. Mouton de Gruyter. Cambridge University Press. Evans. Women Talk. Duckworth. (1996). Language and Literature.. DeForest. Marroni. Edizioni Tracce. A. M. R. Jin (2000). Cassel. ‘Evaluating Evaluation in Narrative’. pp. 115–23.M. and E. M. Jane Austen and Education. ed. Davidson. (1997).D. ‘The Density of Latinate Words in the Speeches of Jane Austen’s Characters’. Dalla parte di Jane Austen. D. (1980). Acts of Implication: Suggestion and Covert Meaning in the Works of Dryden.. N. and M. and L. Cambridge University Press. The Johns Hopkins University Press. I. J. A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels. E. Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. M. Berkeley. Exploring Spoken English. 9(2). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. and E. University of California Press.A. de Marco. and Austen. Cambridge University Press. Multilingual Matters Ltd. pp. Douthwaite. The Pragmatics of Translation. Johnson (2001). Copeland. In the Pride of the Moment. M. P. Encounters in Jane Austen’s World.. in A. eds. Slade (1997).. (1987). in F. 102–20. Cortazzi. W. J. pp. Coulthard. (2004). and D. Jucker (2007).. Harmondsworth. Firth. Grice. 31. Jane Austen and Eighteenth-Century Courtesy Books. Jane Austen and Discourses of Feminism.. S. Gubar (1979/1984). The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Cohesion in English. London/New York. Gard. pp. Selected Papers.. R. (2002). ed. P. Basingstoke/London.. ‘Introduction and Overview’. Representations.)/London. in D. London/New York. C. ‘Logic and Conversation’. (2003). Halliday. (1972). Philadelphia. in Studies in the Way of Words. 22–57. Fowler. J. Miscellanies. A. Macmillan. and P. E. (1981). Linguistics and the Novel. M. Routledge. Pergamon. Fludernik.. P. (1976). (1992). Longman.)/London. (1967/1991).K. Aldershot. Firth.. and “Poaching” in Mansfield Park’.J. 1–18. Graham. ed. .A. 151–65. Jane Austen’s Novels: The Art of Clarity. Halliday: System and Function in Language. Basingstoke. P. Yale University Press. R. and S. (1981). A. The Historical Austen. Mahwah (NJ). Privilege. Jane Austen and the Theatre. (1993). M. Lawrence Erlbaum. R. Oxford. Millar. ed. 159–73. Fielding. Basil Blackwell. G. and R. New Haven/London. Halliday. pp.. Macmillan. ‘Types of Process’. Jane Austen & Charles Darwin: Naturalists and Novelists. Oxford University Press. Oxford. and Pride and Prejudice. Cambridge University Press. Oxford University Press. P. Looser. Fleischman. in A. ed. (1995). Greenwood Press. Studies of Language in the Workplace.152 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Fergus. E. Editions du Seuil. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. Finch. ‘Privacy. London. Bowen (1990). (1983). Genette. The Idea of the Gentleman in the Victorian Novel. Forms of Talk. 159–68. London. The Discourse of Negotiation. (1743). (2008). Paris. Sense and Sensibility. Fritzer. (1997). ‘“The Tittle-Tattle of Highbury”: Gossip and the Free Indirect Style of Emma’. Gilmour. Galperin. Gardiner. (1997). H. Bamberg. (1977). Cambridge (Mass.W. pp. Westport (Conn. ——— (1985). S. Oral Versions of Personal Experience: Three Decades of Narrative Analysis. London. W. Linguistic Criticism. Yale University Press. George Allen & Unwin.A. Harvard University Press. Hasan (1976). in M. New Haven/London. Gilbert. (1995).H.M. Gay. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Ashgate. Figures III.. Jane Austen and the Didactic Novel: Northanger Abbey. London. pp. Edward Arnold. Methuen. Goffman. University of Pennsylvania Press. ‘The “Labovian Model” Revisited with Special Consideration of Literary Narrative’. 3–39. M. in Gunther Kress. pp. pp. ——— (1986/1990).K. 201–29. ‘Consolidated Communities: Masculine and Feminine Values in Jane Austen’s Fiction’. Cambridge (Mass. Evaluation in Text. Faber and Faber. Norton. in B. pp. Baltimore/ London. (1987). Mouton de Gruyter. ed. 8–10. James.A. D. Harris. (1957/1986). Honan. in D. ‘Regulated Hatred: An Aspect of the Work of Jane Austen’. Jane Austen and Discourses of Feminism. Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. ‘Text Politeness: A Semiotic Regime for a More Interactive Pragmatics’. Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. The Athlone Press. G. The Pragmatics of Translation. Inchbald. The Art of the Novel. New York/London. ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’. Hobbes. G. Sherzer.S. ‘Character and Caricature in Jane Austen’. (1959). pp. ——— (2000). ‘Persuasive Rhetoric in Linguistics: A Stylistic Study of Some Features of the Language of Noam Chomsky’. pp. eds. ‘Narrative and Dialogue in Jane Austen’. pp. A Theory of Aesthetic Response. The Hawk in the Rain. B. Macmillan. eds. E. (1953). 83–105. 54. Oxford University Press. Brumfit. 3–14. eds. (1997). Multilingual Matters Ltd. 5–26. Jane Austen: Her Life.Bibliography 153 Harding. in L. Brower. ‘Some Properties of Spoken Discourse’.. H. (1991). On Translation. Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. ed.. (1974). Regulated Hatred and Other Essays on Jane Austen. Amsterdam. Critical Prefaces. pp.. (1989). Hough.. (1988). (1998). Lodge. 39–51. ‘Ways of speaking’. in R. Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching.P. New York. pp. Hudson. (1651/1997). Hymes. Hickey. J. Berlin/New York. Cambridge University Press. Martin’s Press. ed. Harvard University Press. Holly. (1970/1991). (1971/1988). Charles Scribner’s Sons. A. 19. ‘The Cross-Temporal Factor in Verse Translation’.C. in D. .. 101–14. in S. 65–84. ‘Introduction: An Overview’. ed. pp. ——— (1968). Clevedon. Jaworski. pp. A Casebook. Leviathan. St. The Act of Reading. in A.). ‘Bi-text.I. M. in Monica Lawlor. 232–9.. London/Athlantic Highlands (NJ). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. (1791/1967). (1940/1998). R. Jaworski. G. Hoey. Looser. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bauman and J. Holmes. 28–37. T. ed. Thompson. Macmillan. 72–102. 433–52. New York.. pp. Oxford University Press. Basingstoke. Southam. 34–44. a New Concept in Translation Theory’. (1995). ed. Language Monthly and international journal of translation. W. in Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. in R. T. A Simple Story. in R. Critical Essays on Jane Austen. Rodopi. Hatim. pp. Hunston and G.. Basingstoke. (1978). Hughes. Jakobson.A. pp.W. Basingstoke/London. D. B. Jane Austen: Emma. Bowers and C. London. ‘Emmagrammatology’. pp. Macmillan. ed. London. Iser. P. 154 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Johnson, C.L. (1988), Jane Austen: Women Politics and the Novel, Chicago/ London, The University of Chicago Press. ——— (1996/2001), ‘The Divine Miss Jane: Jane Austen, Janeites, and the Discipline of Novel Studies’, in J.L. Machor and P. Goldstein, eds, Reception Study. From Literary Theory to Cultural Studies, New York/London, Routledge, pp. 118–32. Kaplan, D. (1992), Jane Austen Among Women, Baltimore/London, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelly, G. (2004), ‘Jane Austen and the Politics of Style’, in B. Battaglia and D. Saglia, eds, Re-Drawing Austen: Picturesque Travels in Austenland, Napoli, Liguori, pp. 57–69. Kirkham, M. (1983/1997), Jane Austen, Feminism and Fiction, London/Athlantic Highlands (NJ), The Athlone Press. Knox-Shaw, P. (2004), Jane Austen and the Enlightenment, Cambridge University Press. Kroeber, K. (1971), Styles in Fictional Structure. The Art of Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press. La Faye, D. (1989), Jane Austen. A Family Record, London, The British Library. Labov, W. (1972), Language in the Inner City, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, R. (1973), ‘Language and woman’s place’, Language in Society, 2, pp. 45–79. ——— (1975), Language and Woman’s Place, New York, Harper and Row. Larkin, P. (1988), Collected Poems, London/Boston, Faber and Faber/The Marvell Press. Lascelles, M. (1937), ‘Some Characteristics of Jane Austen’s Style’, Essays and Studies, 22. ——— (1939), Jane Austen and Her Art, Oxford University Press. Leavis, F.R. (1948/1964), The Great Tradition. George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, New York University Press. Leech, G.N. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics, London/New York, Longman. Leech, G.N., and M.H. Short (1981/1983), Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose, London/New York, Longman. Levinson, S. (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press. Linell, P. (1990), ‘The Power of Dialogue Dynamics’, in I. Markova and K. Foppa, eds, The Dynamics of Dialogue, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 147–77. Locke, J. (1690/1877), Of Words or Language in General, Being Book III. of the Work Entitled “Locke’s Essays” Concerning Human Understanding, London, William Tegg & Co. Looser, D., ed. (1995), Jane Austen and Discourses of Feminism, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Lyons, J. (1968), Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. Bibliography 155 Malmkjær, K. (2004), ‘Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans Christian Andersen’, Language and Literature, 13(1), pp. 13–24. Mandal, A. (2007), Jane Austen and the Popular Novel. The Determined Author, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Mandala, S. (2007), Twentieth-Century Drama Dialogue as Ordinary Talk, Aldershot, Ashgate. Mansfield, K. (1928), The Letters of Katherine Mansfield 1888–1923, ed. J.M. Murray, London, Constable & Co. Markova, P., and K. Foppa, eds (1991), Asymmetries in Dialogue, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf. Marroni, F. (1994), ‘Sense and Sensibility e le forme della revisione’, in F. Marroni, ed., Dalla parte di Jane Austen, Pescara, Edizioni Tracce, pp. 13–71. Martin, J.R., and P.R.R. White (2005), The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. McCarthy, M. (1998), Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. McIlvanney, W. (1975/1996), Docherty, London, Hodder & Stoughton. McMaster, J. (1997), ‘Class’, in E. Copeland and J. McMaster, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–30. ——— (2002), ‘Mrs. Elton and Other Verbal Aggressors’, in B. Stovel and L.W. Gregg, eds, The Talk in Jane Austen, Edmonton, The University of Alberta Press, pp. 73–89. Mellor, A.K. (2000), Mothers of the Nation. Women’s Political Writing in England, 1780–1830, Bloomington/Indianapolis, Indiana University Press. Meyersohn, M. (1990), ‘Jane Austen’s Garrulous Speakers: Social Criticism in Sense and Sensibility, Emma, and Persuasion’, in B.K. Bowers and B. Brothers, eds, Reading and Writing Women’s Lives. A Study of the Novel of Manners, Ann Arbor/London, UMI Research Press, pp. 35–48. Michaelson, P.H. (2002), Speaking Volumes: Women, Reading, and Speech in the Age of Austen, Stanford (CA), Stanford University Press. Miller, D.A. (1981), Narrative and Its Discontents. Problems of Closure in the Traditional Novel, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press. ——— (2003), Jane Austen, or The Secret of Style, Princeton (NJ)/Oxford, Princeton University Press. Monaghan, D. (1980), Jane Austen: Structure and Social Vision, London, Macmillan. Mooneyham, L.G. (1988), Romance, Language and Education in Jane Austen’s Novels, Basingstoke/London, Macmillan. More, H. (1777), Essays on Various Subjects, Principally designed for Young Ladies, London, J. Wilkie. ——— (1808/1995), Coelebs in Search of a Wife, Bristol, Thoemmes Press. Morini, M. (2002), ‘Kazuo Ishiguro’s An Artist of the Floating World as a Pre-text for Jane Austen’s Emma’, in B. Battaglia, ed., Jane Austen: Oggi e ieri, Ravenna, Longo, pp. 77–93. 156 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques ——— (2008), ‘Outlining a New Linguistic Theory of Translation’, Target, 20(1), pp. 30–52. Morris, C. (1938/1971), ‘Foundations of the Theory of Signs’, in T.E. Sebeok, ed., Writings on the General Theory of Signs, The Hague/Paris, Mouton, pp. 13–71. Mudrick, M. (1952), Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press. Nardin, J. (1973), Those Elegant Decorums. The Concept of Propriety in Jane Austen’s Novels, Albany, State University of New York Press. Neubert, A. (1968/1981), ‘Pragmatische Aspekte der Übersetzung’, in W. Wills, ed., Übersetzungswissenschaft, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 60–75. O’Barr, W., and B. Atkins (1980), ‘“Women’s Language” or “Powerless Language”?’ in S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Barker and N. Furman, eds, Women and Languages in Literature and Society, New York, Praeger, pp. 93–110. Orwell, G. (1937/1997), The Road to Wigan Pier, London, Secker & Warburg. ——— (1984), The Penguin Essays of George Orwell, Harmondsworth, Penguin. Page, N. (1972), The Language of Jane Austen, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Paris, B.J. (1978/1979), Character and Conflict in Jane Austen’s Novels: A Psychological Approach, Brighton, The Harvester Press. Park, Y.-m., and R. Sunder Rajan, eds (2000), The Postcolonial Jane Austen, London/New York, Routledge. Parker, J.A. (1998), The Author’s Inheritance: Henry Fielding, Jane Austen, and the Establishment of the Novel, DeKalb, Northern Illinois University Press. Pascal, R. (1977), The Dual Voice: Free Indirect Speech and its Functioning in the Nineteenth-Century European Novel, Manchester/Totowa (NJ), Manchester University Press/Rowman and Littlefield. Patteson, R.F. (1981), ‘Truth, Certitude, and Stability in Jane Austen’s Fiction’, Philological Quarterly, 60, pp. 455–69. Phillips, K.C. (1970), Jane Austen’s English, London, Andre Deutsch. Poovey, M. (1984), The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer. Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen, Chicago/ London, The University of Chicago Press. Pratt, M.L. (1977), Toward a Speech-Act Theory of Literary Discourse, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Rand Schmidt, K.-A. (1981), ‘Male and Female Language in Jane Austen’s Novels’, in S. Johansson and B. Tysdahl, eds, Papers from the First Nordic Conference for English Studies, Oslo, LOBO Gruppen, pp. 198–210. Reiss, K., and H. Vermeer (1984/1991), Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer. Rosmarin, A. (1984/1991), ‘Misreading “Emma”: The Powers and Perfidies of Interpretive History’, in D. Lodge, ed., Jane Austen: Emma. A Casebook, Basingstoke/London, Macmillan, pp. 213–41. Todd. Longman. ‘Silence and Markedness Theory’. (1993). (2005). Strategies of Reticence: Silence and Meaning in the Works of Jane Austen. (1668). (1993). (2002). in A.. for the Improving of Natural Knowledge. Gender Talk. Language. Russell & Russell. Jefferson (1974). London. pp. Language. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. New York/ London. Culpeper. ‘Connectives in Free Indirect Style: Continuity or Shift?’. Cognitive Stylistics. in J.M. Culpeper. B. ‘Interpreters of Jane Austen’s Social World: Literary Critics and Historians’. Expression and Meaning. 20–56. J. Spring. Berlin/New York. eds. B. Sprat.McH. Martyn. D. Montreal/Kingston. Routledge. The History of the Royal Society of London. (1968). Routledge. ed. (2000). Amsterdam/Philadelphia. V. and Joan Didion. University Press of Virginia. Katherine Anne Porter. 50(4). Discourse and Conversation Analysis. A. 55. Schegloff.P. John Benjamins. 1870–1940. 73–94. pp. Chatto & Windus. H. ‘A Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Mind Style in Narrative Fiction’. Stockwell. Simpson. Essays in Stylistics. London. Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. E. London/New York. J. Macmillan. pp.S. Speer. Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Jaworski. Cognitive Stylistics. E. (1990). S.. F. Stokes. E. pp. Routledge. Linguistics and Literary History. (1983). The Language of Jane Austen. A Study of Dialogism. 39–61. Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage. Semino. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. W. .C. (1979). John Benjamins. Said. P. Seeber. Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. London/New York. Searle. (1997). Semino and J. ‘Miltonic Texture and the Feeling of Reading’.. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Southam. J. 53–72. 216–34. ‘Linguistic Class-Indicators in Present-Day English’. eds. pp. ed. ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Stout. Willa Cather. Charlottesville/London. Sobkoviak. Sotirova. Cambridge University Press. T. 696–735. (2002). New York. P.Bibliography 157 Ross. 95–122. Sinclair. Oxford University Press. L. ed. Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage. London/New York. London. (1991). Language and Literature. in E. and G. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. in E. Jane Austen. A.A. (2004). Feminism. London. 13(3).C. ——— (1987). Ideology and Point of View... McGill-Queen’s University Press. Coulthard (1975). Semino and J. pp. (1994).A. (1954). Routledge. pp. (1948/1962). New Perspectives.K. Sacks. Spitzer. General Consent in Jane Austen. M. London. Stenström. Holmes and Meier. and R. Culture and Imperialism. Volume 2.R. Mouton de Gruyter. R. London. (2004). By the Late Lord Chesterfield. 136–61. in A. Battaglia and D. (1989). Jaworski. and the Legend of Jane Austen’. pp. Berlin/New York. Re-Drawing Austen: Picturesque Travels in Austenland.... (1995). Napoli. D. Civility and Gallantry’. Evaluation in Text. J. London. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. T. (1973). The Stylistics Reader. J. Basingstoke/London. Wales. London. pp. in B. in B. T. Oxford University Press.C. eds. Silence. K. G. Principles of Politeness. Weber. . Southam.. 427–35. A. pp. Philadelphia. Sperber (1992/1996). (1988/2001). ‘Jane Austen and “The Quiet Thing” – A Study of Mansfield Park’. John Bell. Macmillan. ed. Toury. Saglia. Thompson. and S. Methodised and digested under distinct Heads. ‘Emma. Macmillan. 71–82. Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Further Puzzles in Classic Fiction. (1999). Wiesenfarth. Longman. ——— (2004). London. in S. Hunston and G. ‘Silence and the Acquisition of Status in Verbal Interaction’. The Country and the City. ed. The Novels of Jane Austen. Hunston. L. The Pennsylvania State University Press.J. Trilling. (1775). in B. Jane Austen and Narrative Authority. G. S. The University of Chicago Press. Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Trusler. Basingstoke/London. ‘On Verbal Irony’. Tanner. Chatto & Windus. Jane Austen and the Province of Womanhood. By the Reverend Dr. The Translator’s Invisibility. (1989). J. Arnold. Napoli. L. ‘Marriage Prospects: The Austen Treatment’. ‘Evaluation: An Introduction’. Waldron. in J. London.. eds. (1957/1991). Lodge. (2003). and D. ed. Jane Austen and the Morality of Conversation. Liguori. (1973). Fordham University Press. (1968).M. Some Words of Jane Austen. pp. With Additions. New York. 118–37. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wilson. (1995). in D. John Trusler. Re-Drawing Austen: Picturesque Travels in Austenland. Mouton de Gruyter. pp.G. and of Knowing the World. Thompson. An Assay of Jane Austen’s Art. 87–115. 1–27. University Park/London.. Saglia. Williams. Narrative: a critical linguistic introduction. Liguori. Jane Austen: Emma. Critical Essays on Jane Austen. 260–79. Toolan.G. John Benjamins. A History of Translation. Tandon. Thompson. (1997).J. Chicago/London. Tave. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. J. A Dictionary of Stylistics.158 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Sulloway. Battaglia and D. ed. (1988). University of Pennsylvania Press. Sutherland. Harlow. (1995). Anthem Press. London/ New York. ‘Three Words of Jane Austen: Courtesy. B. London. M. pp. Between Self and World. A Casebook. Venuti. pp. R. Watts. The Errand of Form. (1967). Routledge. Routledge. M. Oxford University Press. Wallace. eds. Winborn.Bibliography 159 Wiltshire. ‘Why Jane Austen Was Different. J. 275–98. Zunshine. (2007). (1992). Cambridge University Press. Style. Aldershot. L. Jane Austen and the Body: ‘The picture of health’. And Why We May Need Cognitive Science to See It’. C. The Literary Economy of Jane Austen and George Crabbe. Ashgate. (2004). . 41(3). pp. This page has been left blank intentionally . 85. J. 120 Berger. 137 Bakhtin. 19.F. W. 24. 11.R.V. Dodgson) 21 Carter. U. 114n Babb. R. E. 132 Billi. 45n Cameron. Abington. 143n Brown. 35. E. 15. W. 26n. 91. 86. 34 Firth. 19 Appleton. J. J. A. 81. 133 Booth. P. 11 Boase-Beier. 80n de Marco. 132–3. H. 138n Bublitz. J. M. 52n Brown. H. 95 . 17.D. 4 Farrer. W. B.M. 82n Eco. R. M. M. P. J. 6n Bell. 11 Bertuccelli Papi. D. Lord (P. 94n Austen. 4 Dussinger. 2. J. C. 125 Carver. 106n Atkins. 62n Dossena. 90n Anderson. 100n Cowper. 2–5 Butte. P. F.J. 18n Ehrenpreis. 40n DeForest. 146 Fielding. D. G. 109 Berger. 29–30. 31n Dendrinos. H. 54 Bowen. M. 106n Duckworth. Stanhope) 79–80n. N. 131 Fergus. 99n. 41n Bayley.S. 85. I. C. 28n. W.A. 16. 24. 15 Eliot. B. J. 81. 34 Brooke. 143n Burke. G. Evans) 6n Evans. 130n Downes. 6n. J. S. 70n Austin. L. 101. H. 9–10 Butler. (M. (C. 94 Devlin. L. 114n. 101n. 11. 97n. 80n Blake. 30. 36 Chesterfield. 101n Davidson. 83. 38. J. 82. 101n Coates. K.L. 87. D. 135. R.P.D. J. 11. 81. A. 23 Dilthey. 11 Arndt. 88. 19 Battaglia. 85 Conrad. M. 67n Cortazzi. 132. 101 Burney. F. C. 87 Burgoon. 70n Castiglione. C. 43n Coulthard. 5n Brown. 92n. 10. C. D. 31 Bamford. M. 87n. 18n Douthwaite. 145–6 Fawcett. 29n. 81 Burrows. M. 10. 20–21. P. N. 93n. J. 110. 109. J.F. 7. 134. 26n Addison. G. 40 Blair. M. 146 Eggins. 119. W.A. 17n Edgeworth. M.W. M. 57n Black.A. 88. 82 Finch. J. M. 101n Brown. B. M. 54n Byrne. L. P. (Józef Korzeniowski) 19 Copeland. 97n Dickens.Index Note: The letter “n” following a page number denotes that the index entry can be found in the footnote.L. B. 107n Bach. 125n Carroll. K. H. G. W. 42. 11. 125 McIlvanney.M. J. D.A.W.H. 18n Kaplan. 17 Fludernik. 15n. 110. J. 33n Hudson. 6n Konigsberg. 88. 3. 6n. 131 Meyersohn. P. P. P. 73 Harding. 31n Johnson. 33n. 121n. 7. 57. 120. 116. 107n Martin. W. 16n Johnson. 131n Honan. T.S. J. 129n Mooneyham. 87. 36. 27. 23 Holmes. 67–8. S. 9n Mansfield. 147 Markova. G. Q. 131 Hobbes. P. 2. 145 Lascelles. M. 35n. A. 61. 6 Hughes. 61.K. 131n Hasan. 21 McMaster. K. E. 12 Hunston.J. 83. M. 19. P. 4. J. 84. 61–3. 19. 145–6 Gay. 16. H.W. 23 Leavis. S. E. 31n Kotzebue. M. 10. A. 70n Labov. 53n Gard. D. 139 Linell. G. 75 Looser. 73 Hatim. P. S. 31–2n. 2. G.M. P. 88 Jefferson. 23. A. 2–5 Gilmour.R 24 Mellor. K. E. 75 Hoey. 119. 80n Goffman. 2–5 Halliday. 4 Lyons. S. 93–4. 135. 134. 71. 4 Knox-Shaw. 15n. W. 88. F. G.D. 26n. K. 6n. 20. 5 Fleischman. 84 Ford. 81n Kirkham. 84 Marroni. F. 43n Johnson. 37n Hough. 2 Leavis. S. von 15n Kroeber. R. 2 Leech. 87. R. 11 Galperin. 36n. 46. 26n Joyce. W. 11. 80n. 138n. R. 17–18. 16. 11 Michaelson. 95n Harris. R. 69n Malmkjær. 110. 61 Hymes. D. 31n. 117–18 . 22. S. J. 4 Kelly. J. G. 87. 17n Ishiguro. 86 Holly. 71. 146 Meneghelli. 146 Gardiner. K.M. R. 90n Miller. C. 118n Mandala. G. 2. 132–3.A. 29. P. B. M. 57n Monaghan. D. 145–6 Lawrence. Hueffer) 20 Fowler. 11. 83 Jin. 135. 92 Inchbald. 5. 7. (F. P. 130 Locke.K. 24.H. D. L. 19. 64 McCarthy. 2. 85 Gubar. E. M.162 Jane Austen’s Narrative Techniques Flaubert.W. 20n. A. 145–6 Janney. M. 131 James. 135n Larkin. D. 28n. 109. 23n. 26n. 63–4 Fritzer.H. 106n Jaworski. T. 19n Gilbert. 15. 132–41 Guazzo. 84 Graham. 31–2. D. A. R. M. 83. 8. 130. 101. 108 Jordan. L. F. P. 57 Genette. D. D. 112. G. 6n. 26. 24 Lakoff. 53 Jakobson. S. 133 Mandal.R.L. P. 112.A. 34. 5. 72n Grice. I. 20. S. 81 Iser. 19. 45n. 100. B.H. 33n Foppa. 11 La Faye. 97 More. R. 19.I.G.N.P. 139 Levinson. 101n. 49n. 11. 63 Jucker. M. R. 8. A. 130 Mudrick.A.G. 4. D. 11. 15 Neubert. J.A. 131 Ribeiro Pedro. J. 145–6 Tanner. K.J. N. 10. 6n. B.L. 62n Scott. 83n.Index Morini. A. J. M. L. T. M. 53. 23 Ross.R. 19. 145–6 Trusler. 10. 145–6 Pascal. 7. 85. 100n Said. 20. 94n Reiss. 98. J. (P. 35.S. P. 98n. 23 Zazo. 81. M. 94 Richardson. 105n. G. 120n.A. 23–4 Park. 92n. C. V.C. 26n Toolan. 80n. 5 Parker.G. 33n Southam. 24 Wiesenfarth. S.F. M. 127 Rosmarin. 23. M. P. de la Ramée) 63 Rand Schmidt. M.L. 82. 11. 122n Vermeer. 33n Patteson. 145 Speer. A.K. 61–3 Simpson. 10. M. 10. J. M. G. P. 11. 131 Radcliffe.McH. 5–6n Wallace. M.M. H. 131 Morris. K. 146 Ramus. 74–6 Page. 101n Williams. J. R. 104. 131n Trilling. A. 22. 28. 23n. M. 3n Tave. 54n . 110n Stockwell. G. S. 101n. 75 Spring. D.R. 5 Sutherland. 61 Thompson. 62 Sprat. W. 2. 35n Short. 36n Sulloway. W. R. 53. D. 33. Y. E. 80n Paris. 34 Sinclair. 46 Tandon. 18n 163 Sotirova. 34–5 Wiltshire. 17n. 93–4 Sperber. J. P. E. A. 20. 7n Semino. 53 Orwell. 124 Stenström. B. 89. 26n.C. 17 Praz. 2–5. C.C. R. 72n Pratt. 53n Searle. 4 Schegloff. 131 Waldron. 41n. E. J. S. 18.-m. D. 33n Toury. 94n Oliphant. 146 Phillips. 24. 87n. 11 Poovey. H. 72.J. 11 Thompson. 10 Stout. 91 Sacks. E. 72n. L. 26. L. 10n. A. 129 White. 83. 21.R. J. F. 23 Watts. 90n. 91n. R. 34–5 Spitzer. 19. 15. T. B. L. 15. 4 Sunder Rajan. 131 O’Barr.-A. 145–6 Nardin. V. 83n Wittgenstein. K.P. 16. 33n. 81. 4 Woolf. 15. 11 Wollstonecraft. 131 Zunshine. A. J. 100n.H. 86 Slade. 125 Seeber. 83 Schleiermacher. 52n Stokes. 2. 11 Wilson. B. T. 88n Winborn.