прагматика и медиа дискурс / Mikhalkova_pragmatics_of_invective_some_corrections
.pdfAll these features in the bearer of humorous meaning are commonly ascribed to such cultural character, as a joker or a trickster. Since long ago the trickster participates in formation of meaning in humor. The genesis of this phenomenon can be traced in the times, when ancient humans crossed the border between the nature and the culture. In different world views this crossing is reflected differently: in religious – via the metaphor of eating the fruit from the Tree of knowledge; in scientific – via transgression from a monkey into a Homo Sapiens. In collective social thinking it is marked by the rise of the cultural hero and his victory over the trickster.
According to K. G. Jung, the trickster is a personification of the animal side in a human, memory of which is still kept by mankind in form of social rites, images and prejudices. In his article “The archetype of trickster” (Jung 1972) Jung describes a particular cultural-historic ‘I’ – a personified reflection of mass consciousness about the pre-cultural stage of human society. This ‘I’ reveals itself in a number of social practices: rituals of worship, prejudices; and less – in any other kind of social activity. The trickster, whose essence is most adequately reflected in the Roman mythological character Mercurius, has a fondness for sly jokes and malicious pranks. He reveals a double Nature: animal and godlike. Hence, his ability to change appearance, aptness to all kinds of suffering and closeness to the image of savior. The trickster often falls prey of those, on whom he cheated. He is characterized by a low level of intellect and senseless mutterings. His function in the culture is to compensate over “saint, sacred”: any ritual (especially a religious one) can be turned into absurd, and, vice versa, what used to be nonsense suddenly becomes meaningful. The trickster has a therapeutical effect on people, releasing blocked psychic energy with the help of laughter. Such were Saturnalia in Ancient Greece; in the Christian Europe there were also Fools’ Popes and children’s Bishops.
The mundane image of trickster is manifested in the characters of commedia dell’arte – the dolls are decorated with phallic symbols and entertain audience with obscenities (Pulcinella, Colombina).
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Jung explains the nature of trickster through his origin: formerly the amorphous undifferentiated human consciousness stood over the level of animal and put a border between itself and the Nature, personifying its former unconscious state in the image of trickster – little devil, poltergeist, likho3, etc. The ancient nature of archetype is attested by conservativeness and inflexibility of his image. It is so deeply integrated in the human mind, that each of us perceives the trickster as somebody very familiar (hence, the image of shadow following a person everywhere until death, giving ill advice, bringing ill luck, personifying all bad in a person).
The image of trickster first of all explains social functions of humor, such as leadership assertion and finding public support (for example, the one who is most successful in laughing over somebody else’s deficiencies claims to gain more respect, than the object of his or her derision; the loser will get a lower status or will even be isolated or cast away from the society). The Laughing Man is the winner over Nature and the Subconscious. The laughter drives away those, who still have animalistic features, deficiencies (like in Aristotle’s theory of degradation). Therefore, it is common to mock at some natural innate features: appearance, family connections, physical functions, etc.
Jung thinks that the archetype, lain in mankind, is an ancestor of the cultural man (or the cultural hero). Without trickster the cultural hero could not define his role and place in the collective mind. If the trickster creates Comedy (in a broader sense), the cultural hero gives rise to Tragedy. Bearing in mind the ancient meaning of Tragedy (Ancient Greek tragōdía literally meant ‘goat’s song’; from trаgos ‘goat’ and ödе ‘song), it is the cry of a scapegoat, who sacrifices himself for the sake of public wellbeing. But in Comedy the scapegoat in an image of a poor servant, stands against the society and takes revenge for his sacrifice – like Harlequin punishes Pantaloon or Petrushka tricks the greedy merchant. Therefore, Comedy is not only a cultural marker or constituent; it is a modulator, together
3 Russian for ‘bad luck’.
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
with Tragedy. Consequently, the two sides can be seen in opposition, and this opposition exists within each of them as well.
In his article “Cultural hero”, included in the encyclopedia “Myths of World Nations” (Мелетинский 1994), E. M. Meletinsky gives the following definition of the cultural hero: “мифический персонаж, который добывает или впервые создает для людей различные предметы культуры (огонь, культурные растения, орудия труда), учит их охотничьим приёмам, ремеслам,
искусствам, вводит определенную социальную организацию, брачные правила, магические предписания, ритуалы и праздники. <…> Наряду с добыванием культурных благ и участием в мироустройстве в качестве демиурга и первопредка, наряду с деяниями по преодолению первоначального хаотического состояния мира и его бессознательному и сознательному упорядочению, культурный герой иногда выступает также борцом со стихийными хаотическими природными силами, которые (в виде разнообразных чудовищ, хтонических демонов и др.) пытаются смести установленный порядок”4 (Мелетинский 1994: 25-26).
Meletinsky characterizes the cultural hero as a mythical personage, finding archaic features in him. His main function is to support the order: not only does he win over the chaos, he should also keep harmony in the meso-cosmos – the world of people, limited by the borders with the natural world. Here the cultural hero is opposed to the trickster, establishing a dichotomy that is found in the myths of Gemini. “Культурный герой (с чертами первопредка и демиурга) и его комический дублер – трикстер – центральные образы не только архаической мифологии как таковой, но и первобытного фольклора в целом. Это объясняется, во-первых, архаически-синкретическим характером указанных образов (они предшествуют отчетливой дифференциации религиозных и
4 /A mythical personage, who gets or creates (for the first time) different artifacts of culture (fire, cultivated plants, tools) for people, teaches them how to hunt, gives knowledge of crafts, arts, introduces a social hierarchy, rites of marriage, magic prescriptions, rituals and holidays. <…> Together with pricing cultural goods and taking part in world creation as demiurge and ancestor, together with fighting the chaotic state of world and its unconscious and conscious ordering, the cultural hero also acts as the fighter against elemental chaotic natural forces (often seen as different monsters, chthonic daemons, etc.), that try to ruin the established order./
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
чисто поэтических сюжетов и образов) и, во-вторых, тем, что культурный герой (в отличие, например, от духов-хозяев) персонифицирует (моделирует)
не стихийные силы природы, а саму родоплеменную общину. Раздвоение на культурного героя и его демонически-комический отрицательный вариант соответствует в религиозном плане этическому дуализму, а в поэтическом – дифференциации героического и комического”5 (Мелетинский 1994: 27).
Thus, in art the cultural hero represents the ‘serious’ tragic-heroic foundation, when the trickster represents the comic one. In Comedy the trickster is marked as the ultimately comic personage, and the hero – as non-comic, i. e. devoid of any trickster’s qualities, because without the opposition to something or someone elevated the trickster will lose his antagonistic nature, and humor will acquire satirical character where the ancient opposition of nature and culture is not so important as the problems of the society.
If we look at this through the prism of Aristotle’s theory of degradation, Comedy will arise, when the trickster and the cultural hero start a dual of mockery and derision, where both of them can lose their status. The direction ‘trickster – cultural hero’ is destructive: it destroys obsolete (or weak) cultural phenomena; the direction ‘cultural hero – trickster’ is vice versa constructive: it creates the effect of ‘look above the battle’, when one tries to put up with all the shortcomings of mundane life or the object of Comedy acquires a new meaning, being introduced into the society. The second case (acquiring a new meaning) has a meta-comic orientation – it helps to refresh the social essence of Comedy, make it currently interesting. For example, some time ago in Russia there was a popular joke: when a person did not know the answer to some question they could say “I am what, Putin (to know this)?”6 In the 1990s in Russia the new and unusual realia
5/The cultural hero (having features of the ancestor and demiurge) and his comic alternate – the trickster – are central images not only in the archaic mythology as it is, but also in the primaeval folklore, on the whole. It can be explained, first of all, by the archaic-syncretic character of the mentioned images (they go before the distinct differentiation of religious and purely poetic plots and images) and, second, by the fact, that the cultural hero (unlike host spirits) personifies (models) not only the elemental forces of Nature, but the clan itself. The dual nature of the cultural hero and his daemonic, comic negative variant in religion correspond to the ethical dualism, in poetics – to the differentiation of heroic and comic./
6This phrase is a variant of another joke: “I am what, Pushkin?” Pushkin – a famous Russian poet (like Shakespeare in England).
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
‘President’ was socially interpreted and acquired humorous meaning in a set of jokes, like in the abovementioned joke about one of the Russian presidents Vladimir Putin. The mass consciousness is still working on this realia, not because the society is fighting an obsolete and conservative phenomenon, but because the negative cultural, social and economical background stimulates its humorous interpretation. During the Soviet time the collective thinking connected the word President with the Western political system; President was not only Head of Government, but also a united image of enemy. In modern Russia it has to stand in the place of Tsar or General Secretary of the Communist Party. Only a humorous view can help the society to put up with the existing contradiction.
Thus, the archetype of trickster works as a mediator in situations where two sides of human mind – cultural and pre-cultural – collide. The contradiction between them cannot be eliminated, that is why the collision turns into a comic battle, the result of which is degrading of one of the sides. The comically interpreted phenomenon acquires a new understanding – it is either declared as harmful, useless and isolated from the society or enters the society as a new cultural phenomenon, the content of which will be changing throughout the history.
§ 1.2. INVECTIVE NATURE OF HUMOR
The antagonism between the trickster and the cultural hero is not accidental. It is dictated by the ritual and based on the opposition “chaos Vs. order”. In mythopoetics this ritual is called “invective vituperation”.
Depending on the interpretation, it could be said that the term ‘invective’ rises either to the Latin invectivus “abusive”, or to the Latin invectiva “abusive speech, public affront”, but some researchers note that in Russian it was borrowed from the Middle English (ME invectives “abuse, derision”). The Vocabulary of Borrowed Words (Пчелкина 1987) gives the following definition: “Резкое выступление против кого-л., чего-л., обличение; оскорбительная речь;
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
выпад”7 (Словарь иностранных слов 1987: 190). In the classical rhetoric this lexeme has the status of a term. Invective may denote “культурный феномен социальной дискредитации субъекта посредством адресованного ему текста,
а также устойчивый языковой оборот, воспринимающийся в той иной культурной традиции в качестве оскорбительного для своего адресата” 8
(Можейко 2001: 316), “в узком смысле слова… способ существования словесной агрессии, воспринимаемый в данной социальной (под)группе как резкий или табуированный <…> В несколько ином ракурсе инвективой можно назвать вербальное (словесное) нарушение этического табу,
осуществленное некодифицированными (запрещенными) средствами” 9
(Жельвис 2000), “оскорбительная речь, содержащая отрицательную оценку объекта, на который она направлена, и воспринимаемая этим объектом, как несправедливая, незаслуженная, т.е. не соответствующая действительности и имеющая своей целью понижение статуса объекта речи и / или уровня его самооценки”10 (Саржина 2002: 36-37), etc. It can be assumed that there exists a scale where on one side the term ‘invective’ means a rude, tabooed word, on the other – a whole speech, aimed to insult, let down, or convict somebody. The most known examples of invective (in the latter meaning) are epigrams by Martial, Philippics by Cicero, invective speeches from comedies by Aristophanes, lyrics by Katull, extracts from “The Praise of Folly” by Erasmus of Rotterdam and many other, as invective speech is a stable cultural phenomenon, that is integrated in literature and other forms of art. The juridical discourse also uses the term ‘invective’ (see above the definition by Mozheiko: Можейко 2001).
If lexicology explains the meaning of this term by connotative components (emotional component ‘contempt’, evaluative ‘negative attitude’, etc.) and
7/A harsh affront against sb, sth, a conviction; an abusive speech; an attack./
8/A cultural phenomenon of social disgrace of a person, using a text addressed to him/her, and a phraseological set, understood in this or that cultural tradition as abusive for its addressee./
9/In a narrow sense… a way to set verbal aggression, accepted in this social (sub-)group as harsh or tabooed <…> From a slightly different angle we can call invective a verbal (put in words) violation of an ethical taboo, done by not codified (prohibited) means./
10/An abusive speech, containing negative evaluation of the object, at which it is aimed, and perceived by this object as unfair, not deserved, i.e. not corresponding to the reality and aiming to let down the status of the object of speech and/or the level of his/her self-esteem./
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
pragmatics explains it by the communicative situation and strategy of the speaker (for example, the will to let down the hearer’s status), then in poetics the term invective rises to the ancient rituals of celebration. For example, in the Old Greek comedy much attention was given to “obscene spells… So, the performance of phallophors included satirical attacks… Of the same sort were ‘mockeries from carts’” (Ярхо 2002: 36).
The genesis of this phenomenon is studied in the book “Poetics of Plot and Genre” (1936/1997) by O. M. Freidenberg. It gives the key to the archetypical forms of Comedy, reflected in the oldest sources: ancient myths, legends, literature, etc. Describing Comedy in myth, Freidenberg introduces two terms – invective and laudation (‘praise’). Their semantics covers the opposition ‘cry – laughter’, based on the dichotomy ‘life – death’. Freidenberg writes: “«Улыбка неба» – это рождение космоса; улыбка богов – это их появление, «богоявление» (первоначально – появление, присутствие исчезнувшего тотема)… Смех поэтому избавляет от смерти и недугов, исцеляет, врачует:
улыбка возвращает жизнь”11 (Фрейденберг 1997: 93). So the key folklore opposition is set: ‘laughter = life Vs. cry = death”. For Freidenberg it is evident that once they were identical and followed totem’s vanishing and return. “Былое единство плача и смеха сказывается в том, что они, даже отделившись один от другого, продолжают жить совместно в обряде и мифе;…” (Фрейденберг
1997: 960).
The birth of invective is included in the opposition “life – death”: “божество призывается для плача в прежних обрядах инвокации, но призывается и для смеха в обрядах инвективы (брани): в обоих актах оно оживает. Теперь каждого члена общины поименно называют и высмеивают, что и составляет воскресение коллективного бога-оплодотворителя в новом приплоде и урожае. Называние имени обращается в часть инвективного обряда,
состоящего из сквернословия, срамословия и срамных действ… Инвектива
11 /The smile of heaven is the birth of cosmos; the smile of gods is their apparition (initially – theophany, presence of the vanished totem)… Thus, the laughter deliverers from death and illness, heals, cures: the smile gives life back./
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
носит сперва космогонический характер; она семантизирует появление солнца, новую жизнь;…”12 (Фрейденберг 1997: 99), and further: “В одних случаях мы встречаем инвокацию рядом с лавдацией (хвалой), в других – с
инвективой. И там и здесь их объектом является смерть, переходящая в новое оживание…”13 (Фрейденберг 1997: 102).
Being part of myth, invective is archaic. Its development is seen in the Western culture of the Middle Ages. It is the main part of the verbal contest between nobles (affront and ‘comparing of men’). Johan Huizinga describes the agonistic side of invective: “The nobleman demonstrates his virtue by “feats” of strength, skill, courage, wit, wisdom, wealth or liberality. For want of these he may yet excel in a contest of words, that is to say, he may either himself praise the virtues14 in which he wishes to excel his rivals, or have them praised for him by a poet or a herald. This boosting of one’s virtue as a form of contest slips over quite naturally into contumely of one’s adversary, and this in its turn becomes a contest in its own right” (Huizinga 1938: 65). As good examples of such contest Huizinga mentions Old Icelandic “mannjafnaDr” and “niDsang”. The two contests serve as a path from the general sphere of culture into a textual one, as they denote a genre form.
E. A. Gurevich found out that Old Icelandic sagas have such form, that excludes interference of other genres. Broil (senna) and comparing of men (mannjafnaDr) are examples of such genres. It is obvious that the invective is rooted in them. As it came originally from certain social rituals, affront acquired some markers of genre, that helped to integrate it in literature. The contest starts with the identification of opponents. It requires calling the both present rivals by their names (it is not characteristic of epics to scold somebody behind his/her back). The challenge follows, and it should be accepted. The content if invective is
12/…god is invoked for cry in the rites of invocation, but it is also invoked for laughter in the rites of invective (vituperation): in both acts it is revived. Each of the members of community is called by name and laughed at, to revive the collective god-fertilizer for the new fruit and harvest. Calling sb. by name becomes part of the invective ritual, including scolding, shameful words and actions… The invective has first of all a cosmogonic character; it puts meaning into the advent of Sun, new life;…/
13/In some cases we see invocation near laudation (praise), in others – near invective. In both of them the object is death turning into a new revival…/
14Laudation (Freidenberg).
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
various: accusations in previous deeds and threats of future ones . “Состав обвинения, как правило, традиционен: трусость, невыполнение долга мести за убитого близкого родича, немужественность, изменение пола или обличья,
нарушение нравственных табу, антисоциальное поведение и т. п.
Прагматическое задание рассказа-обвинения – побудить противника нанести ответный удар или отступить – предопределяет нарративную стратегию нападающего («рассказчика»): действительные и, по-видимому,
общеизвестные факты и ссылки на реальных участников инцидента обыкновенно соседствуют в его речи с откровенно неправдоподобными,
фантастическими или гротескными деталями, придающими всему сообщению требуемый подчеркнуто пейоративный смысл”15 (Гуревич 2004: 46). Further, Gurevich underlines ritual character of the affront: the content of derision is not taken seriously. The pragmatic aim is much more important: to win over the rival, to discourage him. The formulas of reply are also quite various: negation of guilt, disregard of what was said (absence of a direct answer – a new strike follows at once), etc. Sometimes the opponent can agree with the rival, but continues with a reciprocal accusation. The one, who strikes last, is the winner.
In comparing of men the nucleus of the utterance is bragging and utter selfaffirmation (Гуревич 2004: 49). It is essential that only nobility can take part in such contests, because they need so to prove their high origin. The necessary component of all their statements is a direct or side comparison and, in fact, contrast of their own heroic deeds and virtues to the real ones, but more often seeming deeds or qualities of the opponent. Formally this contrast is put in the tight frames of stereotyped narrative schemes (Гуревич 2004: 50).
When the formulas of invective were set in fiction, their structure suffered some changes. The challenge is not always marked: it can be trespassing of
15 /As a rule, components of accusation are traditional: cowardice, unfulfilled promise to have revenge over the murder of a close relative, immaturity, change of gender or appearance, abuse of morals and taboo, anti-social behavior, etc. The pragmatic task of the accusation-story is to challenge the opponent to strike back or to surrender. It forms the narrative strategy of the attacker (‘story-teller’): the real and obviously well-known facts and references to the actual participants of the incident are combined with utterly untrue, fantastic and grotesque details, that add a pejorative sense to the message./
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
borders, shameful gesture or mimics, etc. Invective behind the back becomes common, ruining the competitive essence. Some forms stop existing: the long traditional affront with a series of accusations and counteraccusations is no longer important, the opponents tend to make their accusations true-to-life. More often the invective takes form of a single derisive word.
§ 1.2.1. PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF INVECTIVE IN DERISION Invective battle, as the key to the semantics of humor, was formed at the
stage when man crossed the border between pre-cultural and civilized stages. In the ritual of invective physical aggression changes into verbal, and laughter (being at the same time a means to express aggression and pleasure) acquires abusive invective meaning. But if the invective is only a ritual, it should include not only verbal means of communication. These means were not studied in this paper, as we are interested here in the language base of humor and, particularly, linguistic explanation of such phenomenon as invective.
V. I. Zhelvis (Жельвис 2000), S. V. Doronina (Доронина 2002), O. V. Sarzhina (Саржина 2002), V. N. Kaplenko (Капленко 2002), M. A. Mozheiko (Можейко 2001) and others connect invective with conflictogenic type of discourse. In such type the aggressive intentions of speaker are obvious. This type of discourse includes speech acts of offence, threat, defiance, etc. It is characterized by invective vocabulary (Жельвис 2001): substandards, vulgarisms, colloquialisms, scatologisms, etc. In a comic situation the verbal aggression is joky, not serious and, like in a game, it provokes agon. That is why the invective vocabulary here is only one of the markers of a comic mode, and in some discourses, which allow joking, it is even forbidden. Consequently, the pragmatic aspects of invective in a comic type of discourse should exclude conflict.
The closest to the definition of invective, but devoid of ‘serious aggression’ meaning is the speech act of derision: “Derision, however, is distinct from mockery and sarcasm (Gabriel, 1998) in the sense that these kinds of language are explicitly aggressive and do not begin with a phase of openness… Among the many forms of
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)