He accepted my open wallet with his left hand, then extended his right toward the beer can. (1) "Could I have that?" he asked.
(2) "Why not?" I said.
He took it, then held it up between us and poured the beer out on the road.
I smiled, no longer caring. (3) "It was getting warm, anyway," I said. Just behind me, on the back seat of the Shark, I could see about ten cans of hot Budweiser and a dozen or so grapefruits. I'd forgotten all about them, but now they were too obvious for either one of us to ignore. My guilt was so gross and overwhelming that explanations were useless.
The cop understood this. (4) "You realize that it's a crime to..."
(5) "Yeah," I said, "I know. I'm guilty. I understand that. I knew it was a crime, but I did it anyway." I shrugged. "Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal."
(6)"That's a strange attitude," he said.
I stared at him, seeing for the first time that I was dealing with a bright-eyed young sport, around thirty, who was apparently enjoying his work.
(7) "You know," he said, "I get the feeling you could use a nap." He nodded. (8)
"There's a rest area up ahead. Why don't you pull over and sleep a few hours?"
I instantly understood what he was telling me, but for some inane reason I shook my head.
(9) "A nap won't help," I said. "I've been awake too long - three or four nights; I can't even remember. If I go to sleep now, I'm dead for twenty hours."
Good God, I thought. What have I said? This bastard is trying to be human; he could take me straight to jail, but he's telling me to take a fucking nap. For Christ's sake agree with him: Yes officer, of course I'll take advantage of that rest area. And I can't tell you how grateful I am for this beak you want to give me...
But no...here I was insisting that if he turned me loose I would boom straight for L.A. which was true, but why say it? Why push him? This is not the time for a showdown. This is Death Valley...get a grip on yourself.
Of course. Get a grip. (10) "Look," I said. "I've been out in Las Vegas covering the Mint 400." I pointed to the "VIP Parking" sticker on the windshield. "Incredible," I said. "All those bikes and dune buggies crashing around the desert for two days. Have you seen it?"
He smiled, shaking his head with a sort of melancholy understanding. I could see him thinking. Was I dangerous? Was he ready for the vicious time consuming-scene that was bound to come if he took me under arrest? How many off-duty hours would he have to spend hanging around the court-house waiting to testify against me? And what kind of monster lawyer would I bring in to work out on him?
I knew, but how could he?
(11) "OK," he said. "Here's how it is. What goes into my book, as of noon, is that I apprehended you...for driving too fast for conditions, and advised you...with this written warning" - he handed it to me - "to proceed no further than the next rest area...your stated destination, right? Where you intend to take a long nap..." He hung his ticket-pad on his belt. "Do I make myself clear?" he asked as he turned away.
I shrugged. (12) "How far is Baker? (13) I was hoping to stop there for lunch."
(14) "That's not in my jurisdiction," he said. "The city limits are two-point-two miles beyond the rest area. Can you make it that far?" He grinned heavily.
(15) "I'll try," I said. "I've been wanting to go to Baker for a long time. I've heard a lot about it."
(16) "Excellent seafood," he said. (17) "With a mind like yours, you'll probably want the land-crab.
(18)Try the Majestic Diner."
I shook my head and got back in the car, feeling raped. The pig had done me on all fronts, and now he was going off to chuckle about it - on the west edge of town, waiting for me to make a run for L.A.
Pragmatics has been described as "how people use language to mean what they want it to mean, and how others understand them"1. It is most important to realise that there may be vast differences in the meaning of words and sentences when they are scrutinised in an everyday situation. Simpson2, draws attention to the difference between this and semantics, which he says "focuses on the abstract underlying propositions of the contextless sentence".
The idea of how meaning is understood in context is important when considering the significance of narrative text or dialogue. The reasons behind how certain utterances are intended to convey information and how these locutions are interpreted can shed light on social conventions and interpersonal relationships which exist between the interlocutors.
A simple starting point in pragmatic analysis is to analyse the actual function of an utterance in any given communicative situation. This theory was pioneered by J.L. Austin, and developed by J.R. Searle as the concept of the speech act. Language can be used to perform different acts, and to quote an example from the Fear and Loathing extract, in (1); "Could I have that?", the Highway Police officer is performing the act of asking. This type of speech act is not simply a statement, but is indented to have an effect on the hearer, and this is termed a perlocutionary speech act. In this case a direct question has been put to the narrator, Hunter S. Thompson, and a response is expected, namely handing over the can of Budweiser.
Some speech acts are made explicit by performative verbs, which, in the process of the utterance, actually perform the relevant speech act.
In example (11) the officer is performing the act of advising, and this is in fact borne out in the narrative, which describes him handing Thompson the warning as he says the words:
"and advised you...with this written warning" - he handed it to me - "to proceed no further than the next rest area..."
For a performative speech act to be valid, certain conditions are required and these are known as felicity conditions. In the above example, the act of advising Mr Thompson is really a polite euphemism for a directive, ordering him to behave in a certain way. This directive would not be significant if the addresser had not been an authorised police officer, and the law had not been broken. If the conditions were not in effect, the cop would be in no position to reprimand Thompson, or direct him to perform any particular actions. In this case, the officer is a figure of authority, the conditions for his speech act to be valid exist, and thus he is in a clear position to question and order the narrator.
Commissive speech acts compel the speaker, as opposed to the receiver in the above example, to behave in a certain manner.
In (14), "I'll try", Thompson's speech act is commisive; he commits himself to the attempt of reaching the town of Baker, which is not as convincing as a plain assertion, e.g. "I will", or "I promise".
A constative speech act is a basic statement or assertion about the world. The conditions for a constative speech act to be valid simply rely on the truth of the assertion being made. In example (3); "It was getting warm anyway", the sentence simply conveys factual information about the temperature of the beer, but the utterance does not serve a functional existential purpose like example (1). With regard to (3), the pragmatic linguist will search for a reason to explain why the utterance appears unusual or out of place. The work of H.P. Grice can provide insight into the ideology of a speaker by investigating the conventions of dialogue and how they are adhered to in a conversation.
Grice's work is based on a simple principle: that of co-operation between interlocutors. For language to be an effective mode of communication, it is assumed that the participants will try to be as coherent and understandable as possible towards each other. This notion is broken down into four separate maxims which function as a set of synthetic rules which are to be followed to provide the ideal communicative situation. However, these rules are frequently broken in conversation, and it is the examination of the individual's reasons for flouting them which provides interesting information about the relationship between the speakers.
The maxim of Quality requires the discourse to be truthful. If someone is a systematic liar, then their conversational will have no value at all. This is not common, but everyone makes untruthful statements from time to time and the reasons for doing so often highlight interesting factors which may not be obvious from the discourse alone. In example (13), Thompson states that he was hoping to stop in a town called Baker for lunch.
This statement is designed to reassure the officer that he was not intending to drive a long distance in his condition. The reader has already learned in the narrative representation of Thompson's thoughts that he is worried that the cop is anticipating he will try to keep driving:
But no...here I was insisting that if he turned me loose I would boom straight for L.A. which was true, but why say it?
The locution Thompson is referring to in this sentence is (9), in which he simply contradicts the cop's suggestion that he take a rest. He does not in fact reveal his intentions of continuing along the freeway, but to the reader, he is clearly nervous about it. Thus the lie which he tells in (13) suggests that he is trying to cover his intentions and assure the officer that he is in a fit condition to be in control of a vehicle.
To return to example (3), although this statement is true, it also reveals Thompson's nervousness. He is flouting another of Grice's maxims, this time the maxim of Quantity. This states that one should not offer too much or too little information than is required for satisfactory understanding.
In (3), there is no practical need for Thompson to tell the cop that the beer was getting warm. The only purpose that it serves is to indicate that he is trying desperately hard to appear calm and straight.
Thompson breaks the maxim of Quantity again in favour of being drastically honest and truthful in (5), provoking a typical reaction from the police officer: "That's a strange attitude". Thompson's unconventional outburst is most likely an attempt at arrogant nonchalance, in keeping with his plan expressed in the context extract: "The idea is to show him that you were always in control while he lost control of everything." The reality is that the cop is not "in a turmoil...jabbering...or pull[ing] his gun." as Thompson expected him to be, and the control which is implied from the narrator's matter-of-fact point of view could well be a deluded fantasy. In the opening exchanges he relates his emotions as if he is not worried about the encounter ("I smiled, no longer caring"), but this very soon gives way to the desperate ranting in the narrative representation of his thoughts. This inconsistency points towards an element of unreliability in the narrative. Considering this in the context of the entire novel, which relates a sequence of haphazard and downright reckless encounters, suggests that Thompson's casual attitude to his endeavours show a profound lack of prudence which lands him in situations which his fragile state of mind has trouble coping with.
Example (3) also demonstrates a different element of pragmatic study. The statement "It was getting warm anyway" conveys a grater depth of meaning than simply informing the officer about temperature of the drink. The implied meaning is "I don't mind that you are pouring my beer onto the road because it was getting warm anyway." The word anyway helps to signify this conversational implicature, suggesting that the warmth of the beer consoles the fact that it is being poured away because it was no longer pleasant to drink. It is important to note is how this meaning is understood by the hearer. It draws on their schema knowledge which must include, for the implicature to be recognised, the idea that a warm beer is not as pleasant to drink as a cold one.
An implicature which requires specialised schema knowledge occurs in (16). There is an implicit connection between the state of Thompson's mind and a particular seafood dish, but the link is not made explicit through the grammar of the sentence. A lack of cohesive items forces the hearer or reader of this statement to infer the meaning of this suggestion through their schema knowledge. The writer has assumed that the link is obvious enough not to require explanation. A conjunction such as because could be used to introduce factual information clarifying why Thompson should want to eat the land-crab, such as "it contains a lot of vitamin C." The term is perhaps American, but my personal schema knowledge is not sufficient to decode the implicature, and thus the meaning remains obscure.
Deep examination of this statement reveals some strange details: Baker is situated in the Californian desert, near the border of Nevada state, where an abundance of seafood is not likely. Also the definition of "land-crab" is obscure, and one would assume it would be defined if the author was in any doubt over its lucidity.
My assumption that the maxim of relation is being adhered to by the author leads me to seek significance in the statement, but the sentence may simply be an irrelevant joke. In any case, the author and/or the police officer character are not adhering to the next of Grice's maxims, that of manner, which requires discourse to be lucid and understandable. This is a fairly fundamental requirement for coherent communication, but the lack of knowledge Thompson displays about his immediate vicinity may be a cue for the cop to ridicule him without his realising it. He makes a pair of untruthful assertions about the town, feigning sincerity to give the impression of composure. His statements are both qualified with intensifiers; "a long time", and "a lot about it, but later in the narrative we learn that Baker is only "some stinking desert crossroads". The obscurity of the suggestion about the land-crab may simply serve to highlight Thompson's blind ignorance and his foolish assumption that he can outwit a local officer, but alternatively, it may draw on a mutual superiority between the cop character and the reader. This detatchment from the narrator is not achieved, of course, if the reader's schema knowledge can not satisfactorily decode the connection between land-crab and unstable mental faculties.
There are other more significant embedded meanings elsewhere in the text. In (7) and (8), by suggesting that Thompson takes a nap, the officer is implying that he won't be taken to the police station to be questioned or charged. Given that he has already committed two fairly serious offences, and earlier in the novel we have learned that he is carrying an illegal gun, several illegal drugs, and is defrauding several organisations in order to indulge himself, the type of insinuation made by the police officer should be of extreme importance to Hunter S. Thompson. The narrative shows that he has recognised the implication ("I instantly understood what he was telling me...") but by the narrator's own admission, he oddly does not respond to it. Thompson's response (9) incriminates himself even further by stubbornly adhering to the maxim of quality, if not perhaps breaking the maxim of Quantity by continuing from "A nap won't help" to informing the officer that he has been awake for three or four days.
However, by not explicitly responding to the implication that he is being let off lightly in his dismissive response, Thompson does not run the risk of getting himself incarcerated. His response only acknowledges the superficial meaning of the officer's suggestion, that some sleep would probably improve the safety of his driving. The cop is already being extremely lenient with him, he is obviously not in a condition to drive and the extra information which is offered does not do any damage to his chances of escape.
However, in Hunter S. Thompson's mind, all the implications of the conversation are apparent. The indirect narrative thought between (9) and (10) shows him to be extremely worried about what he has said and he then goes on to break yet another of Grice's maxims, that of relation.
This simply states that, for effective communication, the conversationalist should make their contributions relevant to the topic being discussed. Thompson's interjection about the Mint 400 desert race serves absolutely no purpose as an excuse for his behaviour. The only possible connection is the speed of race cars he has been reporting on, and the excessive speed at which he was driving, but the implicature would be extremely complex and would probably not be relevant to the likelihood of his arrest.
This passage illustrates various ways in which people's language can be used to convey a depth of meaning which is not included in the surface structure of an utterance, and how the ideology behind someone's conversation can illuminate reasons for their speech in any given situation.
SOURCES
1 J.Corbett, Language and Scottish Literature, Edinburgh, 1993
2 P.Simpson, Language, Ideology, and Point of View, Routledge
