SPEECH IN HAROLD PINTER'S THE CARETAKER

Lesley Clark

Introduction

In the plays of Harold Pinter, language, not action, is the

predominant medium through which the characters negotiate their
relationships .

The study summarized in this paper attempts an analysis of the Form

and Function of the language in Harold Pinter's play, The Caretaker . It
aims to establish how linguistic devices are used to reveal and develop
the intra- and inter-personal relationships of the characters in the play .

For the purposes of this analysis, the language is viewed in the light
of Grice's Co-operative Principle (1975) ; teacher-pupil discourse
strategies ; adult-child discourse strategies and various other linguistic
devices .

The Co-operativ e Principle of Grice

Grice's theory applies to spoken discourse and assumes that a number

of principles guide the conduct of conversation. These principles accept
that discourse is structured, that it involves a common principle, that it
is a co-operative effort between participants and has a mutually accepted
direction . A number of maxims and sub-maxims underlie this theory, as
follows :

1 . Quality
Maxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true,
spec if ically :
Sub-maxims : 1 . Do not say what you believe to be false .
2 . Do not say what you lack evidence for .

2 . Quantity
Sub-maxim: 1 . Make the information as informative as required for
the current purposes of the exchange .
2 . Do not make your contribution more informative than is
required .

3. Relevance
Maxim : Make your contribution relevant

4. Manner
Maxim : Be perspicuous, specifically :
Sub-maxims : 1. Avoid obscurity
2. Avoid ambiguity
3. Be brief
4. Be orderly .

74
 These maxims give rise to inferences beyond the semantic content of
the sentences uttered . The maxim of Quality generates the pragmatic
inferences that the exact truth is given ; the Quantity maxim that
complete information is given; the Relevance maxim that a statement is
relevant to the situation ; and the Manner maxim that events described
follow a temporal order .

Grice hypothesizes that maxims are often complied with on various

levels, not that they are adhered to on a purely superficial level . He
proposes that in most ordinary conversations where maxims are not overtly
conformed to, the Hearer assumes they are being observed on a more
profound level, because the belief in the Co-operative Principle is being
upheld . This concept is exemplified in the following Standard Implicature :

'Davies : You getting in?

Aston: I'm mending this plug .'
(The Caretaker : 21)

Although at face value Aston violates the Quantity and Relevance

maxims in this exchange, this is not, in fact, the case . Our faith in the
Co-operative Principle leads us to seek connections between Aston's and
Davies' utterances . We therefore arrive at the conclusion, conveyed
effectively by Aston, that he accepts that it is a reasonable time to go
to bed, but must complete an urgent task first -- mending the plug . This
example demonstrates the other major component of Grice's theory,
Conversational Implicature, which looks at the underlying implications of
an exchange and explains how the participants in the exchange can mean
more than they say.

Other categories of implicature are given below .

Generalized_Implicatures

These do not require specific contexts for inferences to be

generated . For example, the character Aston in The Caretaker says : 'I
went into a pub the other day .' Considering the Quantity sub-maxim do not
make your contribution more informative than is required , we can assume
that the actual pub visited is either unknown to the Hearer, or irrelevant
to the communicative intention of the Speaker .

Flouting of Maxims

Conversational implicatures can also arise from the flouting of

maxims . In this case, a maxim is blatantly not observed in order to
exploit it for a specific communicative purpose such as irony. Thus the
Co-operative Principle is still being upheld . This can explain figures of
speech, for example, Mick, in The Caretaker , accuses Davies with :

'You're nothing else but a wild animal .' ( The Caretaker : 73)

Through the Relevance maxim we implicate that Davies has the qualities
of a wild animal and, indeed, his character is revealed to be predatory,
savage and territorial . Without co-operative effort, this figure of
speech would be incomprehensible to the Hearer .

75
The Co-operative Principle and Conversational Implicatures in relation to
'The Caretaker'

The intra- and inter-personal dimensions of the characters in the play

are revealed by the conversational implicatures that their speech
generates and their treatment of the Co-operative Principle . Aston's
tolerance of Davies, which in turn reveals his own generosity of spirit,
is shown in his acceptance of the many occasions on which Davies breaks
maxims, thus failing to uphold the Co-operative Principle . For example :

'Aston : I went into the pub the other day . Ordered a Guinness .
They gave it to me in a thick mug . I sat down, but I
couldn't drink it . I can't drink Guinness from a thick
mug . I only like it out of a thin glass . I had a few sips,
but I couldn't finish it .
Davies : If only the weather would breakl Then I'd be able to get
down to Sidcup .'
(Th e Caretaker : 19)

Aston allows Davies' change of topic even though Davies shows his
disregard for Aston's interests and self-concern by refusing to respond
appropriately to his comment .

The rising hostility that Davies feels towards Aston and his attempts
to dominate him are revealed in his flouting of the Quality maxim
illustrated in the following utterance . This is given in response to
Aston's complaints about noises Davies makes in his sleep :

'Davies : What do you want me to do, stop breathing?'

(Th e Caretaker : 66)

The Quality maxim is flouted here, as this is obviously not Aston's

intent . By way of Relevance, Davies can be seen to mean that Aston's
requests are extremely unreasonable and not to be complied with .

The attitudes towards the Co-operative Principle and conversational

implicatures that arise are very revealing about the relationship between
Mick and Davies . The predatory, territorial instincts of Davies are
recognized by Mick . His rejection of Davies and his right to the room is
revealed in the following exchange which follows Mick telling Davies that
he will share the penthouse with his brother :

'Davies : What about me?

Mick : All this junk here, it's no good to anyone .'
(Th e Caretaker : 61)

The implicature generated is that Davies is excluded from the

penthouse . We can infer that he is part of the useless junk Aston
accumulates .

Davies' interior motives are sharply perceived by Mick, as is revealed

by his flouting of the Quality maxim in the utterance that follows . He
says, with regard to Davies' working abilities :

'Mick : Christ! I must have been under a false impression .'

(The__ Caretaker : 72)

76
 The statement is blatantly false, as Mick clearly comprehends Davies'
character . By way of Relevance, we infer that he has an ironic intent,
his irony conveying and reemphasizing his profound understanding of
Davies' interior motives and his objections to them .

It is through conversational implicatures arising from Davies' speech

that his feelings too are manifested . His fear of Mick emerges clearly and
his own inferior position is reinforced . For example :

'hick : What's your name?

Davies : I don't know you . I don't know who you are .'

Davies' response gives rise to the generalized conversational implicature

that he is unwilling to reveal his identity to a stranger . His wariness
indicates his recognition of Mick as a potentially powerful adversary as
well as his profound mistrust of others and his desire for self-
concealment .

The dramatic significance of the pragmatic inferences arising from the

characters' observation and flouting of conversational maxims is seen in
the insights thus gained into their personalities and relationships .

Adult-Child and Teacher-Pupil linguistic strategies and their relationship

to the characters in The Caretaker

The balance of power between Aston and Davies and the linguistic
strategies by which it is constructed and conveyed can be compared to
adult-child language strategies, as described by Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975) and Mead (1976) .

Aston is the adult, the caregiver and provider who satisfies Davies'
physical needs, giving him a home and money . Conversely, Davies, the
child, is economically dependent on Aston for shelter, clothing and his
basic necessities .

Aston's desire to meet Davies' physical wants is in striking contrast

with his reluctance to negotiate an emotional relationship . Davies' pleas
for psychological empathy are responded to with purely physical support .
In their initial exchanges, Aston offers Davies a seat, tobacco, a bed, to
pick up his bag from the cafe and, later, a smoking jacket and the
caretaking job . His language use therefore establishes Aston as a
provider, and hence in a dominant position . These utterances are all made
in the declarative form, for example :

'Aston : I'll pop down and pick them up for you .'
( The Ca retaker : 11)

This reinforces Aston's superior role, as he assumes the authority to

complete-an action on Davies' behalf without his prior consent .

Aston also withholds, or fails to volunteer, information to Davies, a

strategy used by adults when a concept is beyond a child's mental
capacities or taboo . For example, when Davies seeks reassurance about the
blacks next door : 'Davies : They don't come in?' Aston does not supply

77
the information requested, but responds with 'You see a blue case?' (The
Caretaker : 19) . Davies' complaints about Aston's withholding of
information and failure to communicate further illuminate his subordinate
position . He complains that Aston 'don't say a word' to him (The
Caretaker : 58) and 'don't have any conversation' ( The Caretaker : 60) . It
is Aston who controls the structure of their conversations

Another strategy employed by Aston is his use of explicit directives

as offers to Davies . For example : 'Sit down .' ( The Caretaker : 7) and
'Take a seat .' ( The Caretaker : 8) .

He also plays the role of teacher to Davies, the uncomprehending

student, when he instructs Davies in the use of his electric fire . He
employs another teacher-pupil strategy by refusing Davies a clock, thus
controlling Davies' time . A further assertive strategy is his censure of
Davies, when the latter has criticized his shed .

Censure is a much-wielded linguistic weapon that Mick uses against

Davies . He consistently insults and criticizes Davies, reinforcing his
dominant position . He accuses Davies of being 'choosy' ( The Caretaker :
33) and of being a 'fibber', 'rogue', 'scoundrel', 'robber', 'old skate'
and 'a barbarian ( The Caretaker : 34,35) . He interrupts Davies' attempts
to defend himself, thus denying him equal speaking rights and
subordinating him further, whereas Davies, in contrast, makes only one
censure of Mick .

Mick uses many directives to Davies, most of which monitor or direct

his behaviour . For example, Davies is instructed with : 'Don't get too
perky' ( The Caretaker : 35), 'Don't get out of your depth' ( The Caretaker :
35), 'Don't overstep the mark, son' ( The Caretaker : 38) and 'Don't get too
glib' ( The Caretaker : 50) .

These directives reveal Mick's understanding of Davies' character,

that he foresees that Davies will 'overstep the mark' and try to take
advantage of Aston .

As with the case of censure, Davies issues few directives to Mick, but
when he does, they are employed as defence mechanisms, for he is not the
superior that Mick is when issuing explicit directives . His utterances are
simply desperate attempts to gain some control over the situation in which
he finds himself with Mick . He is a victim struggling against an
aggressor as he tries to regain his trousers and bag from Mick .

Mick reinforces his dominant position over Davies on a number of

occasions, monitoring even his thoughts and claiming to be able to read
his mind with declarations such as 'I know what you want .' ( The Caretaker :
59) . He also controls Davies' past by creating it for him, and Davies
indicates his subordination by accepting this fictitious past history in
the colonies .

The-teacher's right to criticize the subordinate pupil is assumed by

Mick when he makes judgements about Davies' linguistic abilities and
deliberately misinterprets him, as can be seen in the following example .
When Davies claims Aston is 'no particular friend' of his, Mick responds
with :

'I'm sorry to hear my brother's not friendly .' ( The Caretaker : 47)

78
Davies again shows his subordinate position in the relationship by
accepting Mick's interpretation .

Mick further questions Davies' lexical usage when he uses the

adjective 'funny' to describe Aston :

'Mick : What's funny about him?

Pause
Davies : Not liking work .
Mick : What's funny about that?
Davies : Nothing .'
(T he Caretaker : 50)

When Davies retracts his statement above and follows with an attempt to
re-explain his meaning, he implies his acknowledgment of linguistic
incompetence and inferiority to Mick .

Mick's dominant position and Davies' subordinate role are constantly

restated by the variety of different language devices they employ . From
Mick's first utterance to Davies : 'What's your game?'( The Caretaker : 29)
onwards, their ability to understand each other's real intentions and the
threats hidden below the surface meanings of their language are conveyed
in their verbal interactions .

In contrast, the relationship between the brothers is revealed in

their limited exchanges to be well-balanced . Verbal strategies such as
censure, directives, and adult-child, teacher-pupil strategies are
significantly lacking in their exchanges in which the Co-operative
Principle is upheld .

Mick uses a strategy normally associated with the subordinate

character when he repeats Aston's words : 'From the roof, eh?' (The
Caretaker : 37) . However, this implication of subordination is negated by
the other linguistic strategies employed in his exchanges with his
brother . He volunteers relevant information and partially repeats Aston's
words, indicating his willingness to participate in the exchange on equal
terms . In addition, the check-back strategies employed by Mick display
his desire to -11rc Bill communication .

In fact, the brothers' Aialnmia Ah^"t th? (iafnanwi Tnnf is the only
example of a conversation in which participant- makP a genuine effort to
communicate on equal terms in the play .

Conclusion

Aston's and Davies' exchanges can therefore be seen to exhibit many of

the linguistic features of adult-child exchanges and are successfully
negotiated to establish Aston in a dominant role . Similarly, Mick and
Davies, through verbal strategies common to teacher-pupil interactions,
establish a relationship with Davies in the subordinate role .

79
 Grice's Co-operative Principle is, furthermore, exploited by the
characters in the same way as it is by speakers of colloquial English .
The language is seen to be functioning beyond its semantic form in the
pragmatic inferences arising from the conversational implicatures
examined .

The dramatic significance of these inferences is evident in the

insights provided into the characters' psychological mechanisms . Their
motives, fears, strengths and weaknesses are revealed through their
treatment of the Co-operative Principle and manipulation of the other
linguistic devices examined . Through this analysis of the linguistic
devices and exchanges of The Caretaker , we witness Pinter's creation of a
'new dynamic of dialogue in which the coercive power of social
conversation becomes the focus of character confrontation' (Quigley,
1976) .
 REFERENCES

Clark, L .D . 1987 . Speech in Harold Pinter's 'The Caretaker' . M.A . Thesis .

University of Hong Kong

Grice, H .P . 1975 . 'Logic and conversation' . In Syntax and Semantics 3 :

Speech Acts , edited by P . Cole & J .L . Morgan, pp . 41-58 . New York :
Academic Press .

Mead, R . 1985 . 'The discourse of small-group teaching' . In Dialogue and

Discourse , edited by D . Burton .

Pinter, H . 1960 . The Caretaker . London : Pyre Methuen .

Quigley, A .E. 1975 . The Pinter Problem . Princeton University Press .

Sinclair, J .M. & Coulthard, R .M . 1975 . Towards an Analysis of Discourse:

the English Used by Teachers and Pupils . London : Oxford University
Press .