ࡱ> NPM7 :MbjbjUU )Z7|7|Fl 84H pp(  %  5$ Y-Y  t   d 0T*H9  $0 T T  Metacommunicational functions of stylistic deviations By Hrvoje Turkovi (Zagreb, Croatia) Stylistic deviations, stylistic markings, do not occur randomly in a discourse. There are kinds of discourse and places in a discourse where the occurrence of stylistic deviation can be expected with high probability. The paper points to such places within a chosen cinematic discourse (a classical movie), professing a view that what connects all the examined probable occurrences of deviations is the metacommunicative function, i.e. they all help to regulate the communicative adjustment of the audience to the main course of discourse. 1. The problem In the most discourses there are some local discoursive occurrences - like rhetorical figures in cinematic and literary discourse, graphic changes in writing, or intonation changes in speech, optical or observational transformations in movies, inserts and digressions - that stand out in the context of discourse, and can be judged as somehow exceptional, marked out. They are a kind of deviation from some regularity (from a norm, a rule, a standard, a frequency pattern, a habituation pattern etc.) that is valid (at least) over the stretch of discourse in the context of which the phenomena occur. Being a deviation from some regularity, such occurrences are somehow uncommon, unexpected, of the lower occurrence probability then the surrounding discourse components (at least over the context where they appear). As a kind of exception within the given discourse stretch, deviational features activate higher attention then the regular pattern features, and this is the reason why they mark the place, attract higher attention to the place where they occur. But, on the other hand, in the most discourse cases we experience such meaningful deviations - i.e. stylizations1 - as quite fitting, common, expected, even sometimes as obligatory at the places where they occur. Actually we often feel that most stylizations do not occur randomly in a discourse, that there are some definite functional places where they are more apt to occur then somewhere else. It seems as if their occurrence complies with the definite regularity. Due to such an experience, some theoreticians tend to be suspicious of the deviation theory of rhetorical figures, of stylizations in general: how can we treat stylization as deviation - a kind of irregularity - if it is highly expected? On the other hand, those who are not ready to overlook the fact that there actually are local meaningful deviations within a discourse seem to face an apparent experiential paradox of expected unexpectedness. But, is it a real paradox? How to decide the reality status of the paradox? Now, there is a commonsense criterion: if the expected unexpectedness of stylization is commonly accepted with ease, without feel of incongruity - as is mostly the matter with the suitable stylization - they obviously cannot be the case of real experiential paradox2. One has to suppose that the regularity that is deviated from and the regularity which gives the air of expectedness to the deviation are not the regularities of the same level, of the same type. They do not have the same discoursive status. What is the discoursive status of deviations, stylizations? 2. The example: scene openings Let me give an example of the expected unexpectedness in cinematic discourse. In Hitchcock's film North by Northwest (SAD, 1959), the cinematic scene - in which US Intelligence service officials are deciding the fate of Mr. Thornhill (played by Carry Grant), let us name it the conference scene - starts with the close-up of a newspaper. There is a photo of Mr. Thornhill with the knife and the dead man in his arms and the title of the article: DIPLOMAT SLAIN IN U.N.. As the voice over is heard reading the article, the viewing position moves back and slowly the comprehensive vista is established on the people sitting at the conference table and listening. To start the new scene presentation with the scenic detail is a deviation from the classic movie convention according to which a new scene presentation has to begin with the comprehensive view of the totality of relevant scenic situation. The convention is so firmly rooted in the classical movie style that the shot realizing it has its own name: establishing shot (master shot sometimes, as a residuum of an older practice of the shot dissection of the scene, and orientation shot too; Konigsberg 1987). Moreover, the convention has been reasonably consistently obeyed by Hitchcock in the previous sequences of the movie: all the previous beginnings of the cinematic scenes in North by Northwest offer adequately wide view of new scenic situations. Now, though exceptional - within this movie and generally within the classical movie practice - such a start with a detail of scene instead of the comprehensive view is not unknown. In most classical movies, there are at least few cinematic scenes that start with a detail and not with a general view. But, being infrequent within particular movie, such starts are still felt marked, and they emphasize a particular scene in the context of other scenes. Now, if a discoursive move is to be non-ordinary but accepted (regular) within a discourse, it is expected to have an additional justification, an extra-legitimation. In the classical movie style such a synecdochical start of a scene tends to invite a symbolic interpretation - a supposition that it has some special significance for the understanding the later development of the scenic event, that it would later on attain additional significance. This is actually the case in the described Hitchcock's example: the starting detail specifies the main theme of the successive exchange between the film characters. Though, it is not the identification of its symbolic status that gives the detail its latent significance; it is its non-ordinary placement at the start of the cinematic scene that postulates the significance. This particular place within discourse is what justifies, legitimizes a deviation occurrence. But, why this specific place among all other places in discourse? The new thematic unit of a discourse implies a change in comprehension routines established within the previous unit. The discourse participants may be forced to use significantly different stock of knowledge and an entirely different interpretation attitude in order to achieve adequate understanding of the new discourse line. To change our interpretation stance on time we need a clear warning: a clear signal that the change is actually taking place (that we are not faced with just a continuation of the discourse line we have been following up to the moment), and that there is a need to open up ourselves for a new comprehension task. We also need some reorientation time - the time needed to reorient ourselves adequately in our comprehension procedures. Deviations are the most obvious suitable candidates for such signals, because they are a kind of exception from the surrounding discourse pattern, difficult to be overlooked. So it is highly probable that this or that stylization will occur at the beginning of a new segmental unit of discourse in order to warn us, to give us a needed break time, and to give us helpful hints with regard to the new comprehension tasks of the new structural unit of discourse. A synecdochic start of cinematic scene is one among others that fulfill the role of needed reorientation signal; it is a kind of discourse unit opening. 3. Other deviation reservations in discourse Besides openings, there are other places where movie audience implicitly expects some situational deviation to occur. Symmetrically to openings, there are scene closings. As the end of the scene (or some discoursive unit) is approaching, there is usually some closing notice, some closure signals. Namely, there is usually a general need for particular signals that will prepare the discourse participants for the fact that the given theme (given discourse line) is done with, and that the field of discourse is being set free for the next line (for the new theme, for the new turn of talk...; cf. Harper, Wiens and Matarazzo 1978). In the Hitchcock's conference scene in North by Northwest the observation point of the last shot functions as a kind of a closing notice: it is a very high angle comprehensive view of the whole conference table and all the characters sitting around it, remarkably in contrast to - deviating from - the eye-level (co-participating) observational pattern established during the same scene. Now, the important changes in a discourse structure are usually preceded by multiple signals in order not to be missed. So, in the Hitchcock's movie, the transition from the UN murder scene to the conference scene is not only signaled by the marked ending and marked start but by the very complex transition signals, all of which are different kinds of stylization: a dissolve from the previous shot; the fading background music with a slight music accent at the moment of the appearance of the newspaper photo of Thornhill; then even the two shots that precedes the dissolve are felt to be explanatory and commenting inserts helping the transition. All such signals stand out from the mainstream of discourse as extra moves, as accompanying strategmata. Deviational intervention however does not occur only within the boundary regions of the discourse units - it occurs inside the units too. Previously without any music accompaniment, at the point where the murder takes place there is a sudden introduction of music within the UN murder scene in the North by North-West. It gives a special discourse importance to the particular moment: the movie-viewer is led to believe that this part of the cinematic scene, this part of discourse has special status in the development of the discourse. One can say that the introduction of music at this point in the Hitchcock's cinematic scene is a kind of evaluation signal - a signal that will led the audience to give a special communicational value to the discourse moment where such signal occurs. The evaluation signals help the viewer not to miss the comparatively higher strategic importance of given discourse moment in relation to the other contextual moments. One of the two transitional insert shots previously mentioned (following the murder scene in UN, and preceding the close up of the INTELLIGENCE SERVICE front plate) is the extreme high angle shot of the U.N. lawn with the small speck of a man running to the cab. This shot is the presentation of Thornhill's escape. The view stresses the smallness, the unimportance of Thornhill on the playground of the big spy-game; his low, faraway position, far from the hearts of the decision people. Such shot has the function of a general comment: it relates this particular situation to the far wider and more general (and abstract) situation than that presented within the shot and within the course of observed event sequence. It forces the movie-viewer to take over a particular interpretative stance toward the presented scenic situation of the character at exactly this place. It does not allow the viewer to postpone the interpretative work to the post movie-viewing musings, nor does it allow missing such an interpretation altogether. The particular shot is a commentary, an interpretation evoking signal. But suppose that the deviations do not occur in such a rarified and orderly manner as described above? What if they occur all the time during the discourse? Such is the case with some modernist films, with TV-commercials, with music clips, with experimental films... They all tend to be saturated with all kinds of stylizations throughout a movie and at almost every moment of discourse. Could such deviations still have a landmark function, as those demonstrated above? Namely, if they are frequent, they may form the new mainstream regularity. For example, there is the notorious dream sequence in Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, SAD, 1945), where the set design (scenography) was done by Salvador Dali. The whole sequence is done with continuous scenic (surrealist) distortions: stylizations of ambiance - scenographic - structure with gross disproportions between scenic elements, distortions of scale relationships between characters and things (e.g. enormously big scissors in the hand of man, enormously big table and playing cards), stylizations of event-chaining (discontinuity), etc. The characteristics of the scene situation are perceived as stylizations on the background of everyday experience of the world, where such distortions are not probable, but they are also perceived as such on the background of all other (normal) scenes in the movie where such distortions do not occur. Now, since such situational stylizations are continuously present throughout the scene, they cannot mark out any particular moment within the scene. However, their frequency and the characteristics do have a signaling function: they signal the dream character of the scene - i.e. they signal an altogether different comprehension status of this sequence as compared to the other sequences within this film discourse. Therefore they activate and support the reorientation of the viewers' (high-level) comprehension routines. Such frequency of stylizations helps the audience to perceive the sequence as a different kind of discourse from the mainstream discourse; it is a shift signal, a signal of genre-, style-change; signal of the change of the discourse category. Combined with some more specific signals, the higher-than-common frequency of stylizations within particular discourse can therefore signal a particular generic category of a discourse: either a modernist style option, or a poetic orientation (e.g. in documentaries, in music-clips), or a higher art option of modernist films. Etc. 3. Metacommunicational function of stylizations One can ask whether - in spite of their functional difference - there is anything at all that functionally connects all these places and signals? Do the signals form a unique pattern, an identifiable system? They do. Let us review the basic characteristics of the described rhetorical reservations. a. The described places and signals are part of the total structure of a discourse. They do belong to the structure of discourse. b. What characterizes such places is that some communicational insecurities can arise in viewers at that point with regard to the status of discourse - insecurities about the continuation or non-continuation of the present line of discourse, insecurities about the nature of the oncoming discourse line, about the comparative importance of the given discourse part, about the preferred interpretational value of some part of the discourse, about the change and nature of general aims of communication at that moment... The accommodation of the addressee to the course of discourse may go wrong or miss the point at such places and may not match the intended and expected communicative import of the discourse. c. Since the predominantly established discourse procedures (i.e. the main routines, regularities) within a given discourse need not induce the necessary cautiousness and attentiveness in the discourse participants at such places, nor need they offer sufficient information to resolve the insecurities at such places on time, there is a need for some additional clarification - the additional signals, cues - the purpose of which would be to signal the particular communicative status of such places and induce a suitable discourse comprehension orientation. d. The role of such signals can be suitably filled in by anything that stands out in the given context of discourse. Any obvious intentional deviation from the established routine within the given context can suitably serve as such a signal, as a cue - as a landmark. e. Now, it is vital that such cues - though the part of the totality of the discourse - are not perceived as belonging to the main body of discourse, to the main message system of the discourse (the one that declares itself as the main reason for communication, and which absorbs the greatest part of communicative attention, the most of focal awareness). They all assume an extra-diegetic function with a reflexive relation to the discourse - a differential attitude toward the given moment where they occur in the flux of a discourse. They are all metacommunicational3, helping to regulate the participants' relationship toward the structure of the discourse and toward the communicative interaction in general. They are part of the metacommunicational, regulatory system. Notes 1. A terminological remark. Since a discoursive mistake is a kind of deviation too, we shall call stylizations those deviations that are meaningful, functional within discourse. 2. Real experiential paradox in the sense of Escher's paradox pictures (cf. Locher 1974). 3. The term metacommunicational signal is used in Gregory Bateson's sense, expounded in his Theory of Play and Fantasy (Bateson 1973). Metacommunicational signals are sometimes called regulators, after Ekman and Friesen (cf. Harper, Wiens, Matarazzo 1973: 131). Bibliography: Bateson, Gregory 1973 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Granada Publ. Brown, Gillian and George Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge U.P. Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Harper, R.G., A.N. Wiens and J.D.Matarazzo 1978, Nonverbal Communication: The State of the Art, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Konigsberg, Ira 1987 The Complete Film Dictionary. New York and Scarborough, Ontario: New American Library. Locher, J.L. 1974 The World of M.C. Escher. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers. Turkovi, Hrvoje 1986 Metafilmologija, strukturalizam i semiotika (Metafilmology, Structuralism and Semiotics). Zagreb: Filmoteka 16. PAGE 4 PAGE 7 j |~  $ . 7 ; ? C G O S d h { l p   $ % 5L\hlpcu m}BT0S""""i#w###r%%' (*++1+N,_,//0011?4I44488999:;;<<CJEH 6>*CJ6CJCJ 56CJ\np|}~ OOR/{1$`1$^1$$1$a$M8M{0 """"D#&]))-12\:;;;<<==\@BCFFbGG 01$^`01$1$`<====\@^@AAAAAABBCCEEEEEFFFFFFGG8GBGDGNG{HHHHH IJI\IIIIJKJgJJJLtLxLLMMMMMMMMM*M,M.M0M2M8M:M0JmHnHu0J j0JU 56CJCJEH6CJCJEGHHH&IwII6JJJMMMMM2M4M6M8M:M $&@&#$a$1$ 01$^`0'0@P/ C!"#$% i0@0 Normal_HmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font,@, Header  9r &)@& Page NumberF Z 78]^_|}~O O R/{0D!]$$(,-\56667788\;=>AAbBBCCC&DwDD6EEEFFFFFF000000000000000000000000000000@@0@0 <:M'+{G:M(*,8M) !!BJ mv\g* 0 5 : C ##$$)))*////0066@#@@@~AAAABBBBBC;CBCJC]CCCCCCCCCD#DwD~DDDDDDD6E@EEEEFF"F$F2F3F4F5F>F@FMFuF~FFFFBDLP 3 NP- # u'x',,i//@@bBBCDwDD6EhEEEElFFFF3333333333333333 SNJEZANA & HRVOJE&C:\TEKSTOVI\HRVOJE\Papers\METACOMM.DOCHrvoje&C:\TEKSTOVI\HRVOJE\Papers\METACOMM.DOCHrvoje TurkovickC:\Documents and Settings\Hrvoje Turkovic\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of METACOMM.asdHrvoje Turkovic.D:\HRVOJE\Papers\Metakomunikacija\METACOMM.DOCHrvoje Turkovic.D:\HRVOJE\Papers\Metakomunikacija\METACOMM.DOCFFFF@Canon S520Ne01:winspoolCanon S520Canon S520߁ odLetterBJDM(__VT$m,`Oj,`OjVT$m,`Oj,`OjXX!DRAFTSample 1dVT$mVT$m@  Canon S520߁ odLetter(DCanon S520߁ odLetterBJDM(__VT$m,`Oj,`OjVT$m,`Oj,`OjXX!DRAFTSample 1dVT$mVT$m@  Canon S520߁ odLetter(D||`C>>||(FF @LUnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial#Aheâ3 %:|$20dgG2!metacommunicational functions of stylistic deviationsHrvoje TurkovicOh+'0 0< X d p|"metacommunicational functions of osetastylistic deviationsunctyltylNormaliHrvoje Turkovic5voMicrosoft Word 9.0s@`4<@A\@(H93 %:՜.+,0 px  3MT|gG "metacommunicational functions of Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-/0123456789:;<>?@ABCDFGHIJKLORoot Entry Fp9H9Q1Table.TWordDocument)ZSummaryInformation(=DocumentSummaryInformation8ECompObjjObjectPoolp9H9p9H9  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q