Excerpt 1: the opening sequence

The opening scene of the film, in which viewers’ primary impressions of Erika (as well as her mother) are formed, begins with a medium shot of a closed door from the inside of a dark apartment. Erika, shown in a medium shot, opens the door and enters the on-screen space. Heading through the hall to her room, she is caught by her mother’s reproachful voice which stops her suddenly by greeting her from the off- screen space. Erika responds in a tired voice. The kinship relationship between Erika and her mother is constructed linguistically through characters’ use of vocatives ‘child’ and ‘mom’ (ES 1, 2), which function as an ‘internal conceptual header’ (Schank and Abelson, 1977), i.e. the cue that refers to actions and roles, and activates viewers’ mother-and-daughter schema. Erika’s voice and her body language suggest that she has already predicted her mother’s intention of interrogation. In fact, the interrogative illocutionary force of mother’s SA (ES 3, 5, 7, 9) is disclosed in a chain of SAs ranging from disputing and rebuking, ridiculing (‘home already, I’m so happy’), forbidding (‘not so fast’), affirming (‘I can quite believe it’) and commanding (‘no, no you don’t! not until you tell me!’) through which she tries to question Erika on why she is late home. Erika tries to evade and ignore her by just saying (‘oh, no’) and dashing to her room. The mother tries to stop her, and this time, she starts her interrogation by affirming that she knows Erika is tired, but cannot understand why she is late. She uses linguistic hedges such as might I know, to rephrase her question, but it reinforces the directive force of her interrogation. She insists on her words and pays no attention to Erika’s imploring to leave her alone and physically prevents her from entering her room by commanding her (no you don’t!). In ES 9, the mother’s SAs of commanding and dictating bear the illocutionary force of requirement which is stronger that request.

According to Harnish and Bach’s (1979) schematic model for SA, in requesting, the speaker (S) expresses his/her intention that the hearer (H) takes his (speaker’s) expressed desire as a reason to act; as through begging (please leave me be!) and imploring (please!) Erika wills that her mother takes her wish as a reason for leaving her (p. 47). But in requirements S’s expressed intention is that H takes S’s utterance as a sufficient reason to act. In fact, requirements do not necessarily involve the speaker’s expressing any desire at all that H act in a certain way and it might be quite clear that S could not care less. Instead, what S expresses is their belief that their utterance constitutes sufficient reason for H to perform the action (p. 47). The mother believes that because of her influence and authority in relation to her daughter, her commanding and dictating words provide enough reason for Erika and oblige her to tell her where she has been (without considering whether she wishes to do so or not). She jostles to prevent Erika from entering her room (Grabs 7, 8, 9) and this physical prevention enhances the illocutionary force of her requirements.

Erika informs the mother that she went for a walk. However, the mother does not believe that her walk has lasted three hours. She grabs Erika’s bag by force and discovers a new dress in it (Grab 13). Having discovered the dress, she ridicules her by expressing that she already knows that Erika has lied. As she realized that she has spent a lot on buying the dress, she starts insulting her. Erika orders her to give it back, but the mother refrains and her refrain results in a physical struggle. The dress gets ripped, and, in an outburst of anger, Erika gets into a harsh physical clash and jumps to pull out the mother’s hair (Grab 15). By using the most direct form of insult (Bitch!) Erika, along with the physical attack exhibits characteristics such as nervousness, restlessness and agitation. She seems more reserved than the mother up to this point: while the mother uses requirement/directive forms of commanding and dictating (ES 9), she tries to evade argument through using requstives/directives of imploring and begging (ES 6, 8). This physical struggle is highly revealing, as, in addition to their verbal arguments, it unveils their tormented relationship even more. The mobile and over-the-shoulder camera with its sudden movements follows Erika and enhances the intensity of the scene. Then, the scene cuts to a medium shot which shows the mother sitting on a sofa and watching television, while Erika is hovering around in anger and distress. The mother tries to provoke Erika again by expressing words of curse and rebukes (ES 15). Erika tries to stop the mother by ordering her to finish the argument (ES 17). The illocutionary force of her order is also reinforced by the insult: cow. In reaction, the

mother interrupts Erika’s utterance and prohibits her from saying this (ES 17). Uttering such prohibitive expression puts her in an authoritative position. According to Harnish and Bach (1979) in uttering expressions with prohibitive illocutionary force, ‘S prohibits H from A-ing [acting] if S expresses: (i) the belief that their utterance, in virtue of his authority over H, constitutes sufficient reason for H not to A, and (ii) the intention that because of S’s utterance H not do A (p. 47). Here, the mother forbids Erika from saying what she wishes (i.e. cursing) as considering her authority, she might believe that her prohibitive utterance (ES 17) provide enough reason for Erika to stop. Moreover, the mother believes that due to the power of her prohibitive utterance, Erika does inevitably stop. The mother also warns Erika about her own poor physical condition to arouse Erika’s pity and compassion. The effect of the mother’s prohibiting and warning illocutionary force is evident in Erika’s utterance as in the next turns, she begins apologizing (ES 20, 22). Erika is crying and embracing her mother as she apologizes her for what has happened which visually reinforces her expressive illocutionary force of her SA. According to Harnish and Bach’s (1979) schematic proposition for apology, in uttering an expression of apology, ‘S apologizes to H if S expresses: i. regret for having done D [what S has already done for which s/he apologize], and ii. the intention that H believes that S regrets having done D to H’ (p. 51). Erika utters the words of apology and expresses her true regret in two subsequent turns (ES 20, 22) with the modifier truly which linguistically shows her sincere intention. The mother also believes Erika’s regret and accepts her apology. According to Harnish and Bach (1979), ‘in uttering E [the expression of accept] S accepts H’s acknowledgement [expressive] if S expresses: i. appreciation for H’s acknowledgement, and ii. the intention that H believes that S appreciates H’s acknowledgement’ (p. 53). The mother accepts her apology by saying (‘never mind!’) and offering her a coffee. The mother’s act of offering a coffee functions as an assurance for Erika that her mother has forgiven her.

The patterns of the mother’s and daughter’s illocutionary forces show that the mother tends to exercise her power over Erika, while Erika behaves much more submissively and yieldingly with the mother.

Table 5-1. Initial exchanges

ES Ch Sequence SA Visual/Grab Possible illocution

1 M Good evening, child Greeting Greet/acknowledgment

(expressive)

2 E Good evening mom. Greating Greet/acknowledgment

(expressive) 3 M Home already, I’m so happy. Disputing/ rebuking reidiculing Disputative/constative

4 E Oh, no. Demuring Disputative/constative

5 M Not so fast. Forbiding Prohibitive/directive

6 E Please. Leave me be. I’m tired.

Begging Requestive/directive

7 M I can quite believe it. Your last pupil left 3 hours ago.

Might I know where you’ve been all this time? Affirming Affirming Interogating Assertive/constative Assertive/constative Requirement/directive

8 E Please. Imploring Requestive/directive

9 M No, you don’t! Not until you tell me! No! (she grabs her from behind)

Commanding Dictating Commanding

Requirements/directive

10 E I went for a walk. Do you mind?

I spend 8 hours in my cage. I was tired and needed some air.

11 M For 3 hours?! Interrogating Requirment/directive

12 E Absolutely! Asserting Assertive/constative

13 M Magnificent! Just as I thought!

Where is the

bankbook? 10.000 Schillings! Tell me, have you lost your mind? rebuking/ ridiculing Interogating? Insulting Disputative/constative Question/directive Acknowledgment (expressive) 14 E Give me back.

No… no… Bitch!

Ordering Insulting

Requirement/directive Acknowledgment (expressive)

15 M Could cut your fingers off.

Beating your own mother!

That frock is so gaudy anyway.

At your age you should know what suits you.

Cursing Rebuking Warning Warning Bid/Acknowledgement (expressive) Advisoriy/directive Advisoriy/directive Advisoriy/directive

16 E Can’t you stop you cow?

Ordering Requirment/directive

17 M What? You daren’t say it. Don’t bother. I know what you wish. I could have had a heart attack from the agitation. Prohibiting Warning Warning Prohibitive/directive Advisory/directive Advisory/directive

18 E Stop it, mama. You don’t know what you’re saying

Begging Requestive/directive

19 M There’s a real hole here. Here, too.

Informing Assertives/constative

20 E Sorry mama.

But why do you do these things? Apologizing Asking Aplologize/acknowledge ment (expressive) Question/directive

21 M Why do you do these things?

Retorting Responsive/constative

22 E I’m sorry. Truly sorry. Let me look

Aplogizing Appologize

/acknowledgement (expressive)

23 M Never mind! That’s how it is. We are a hot-blooded

Forgiving Confessing

Accept/acknowledgment Concessive/constative

In Table 5.2, the mother’s and daughter’s SAs are categorised into four groups based on Hanrish and Bach’s taxonomy of SAs’ illocutionary forces (see Appendix 7). As Table 5.2 shows, the mother has more instances of directives than Erika (13 vs. 6).

Table 5-2. Mother's and daughter's illocutionary force of SAs

Illocutionary force of SA Erika Mother

Constative 3 7

Directive 6 12

Commissive 0 1

Acknowledgment (Expressive) 4 4

Total 13 24

Table 5-3. Types of characters' directive illocutionary force

Types of directive IF Erika Mother

Question 1 2 Advisory 0 5 Requestive 4 1 Requirement 1 3 Prohibitive 0 2 Total 6 13

The marked feature of the characters’ SAs, as Table 5.2 demonstrates, is the high instances of directives. In fact, using directive SAs does not help to make a distinction between characters as they encompass an extensive range of SA from begging to prohibiting. For this reason, the types of directive SA on which each character draw are classified based on the visual properties such as characters’ facial expressions, voice quality and paralinguistic aspects. As Table 5.3 shows, the characters’ directive SAs range from question, as the most basic type of directives which create illocutionary forces such as asking and inquiring, to prohibitives which

family.

Come on, stop crying. I’ll make some coffee. We will have a cup together. Okay? Imploring Offring Requestive/ directive Offer/Commissive

can include forbidding and prohibiting. In terms of advisory SA, the mother uses the SAs of rebuking and warning (ES 15), which can involve a characterizing function. Based on Harnish and Bach’s (1979) schematic specifications of advisories, in uttering an advisory SAs (such as a warning), S advises/warns H to do a specific (S’ desired) act as s/he expresses: i. the belief that there is (sufficient) reasons for H to do/do not the S’ desired act, and ii. the intention that H take S’s belief as (sufficient) reason for him/her to do that act. By saying ‘the frock is so gaudy’ and ‘at your age you should know what suits you’, the mother believes that she provides sufficient reason for Erika not to wear it. The mother’s forceful tone of voice also enhances the illocutionary force of warning in her directive.

In addition, the mother employs more examples of requirements such as commanding and dictating (ES 9), in contrast to Erika who uses just one instance of ordering with the illocutionary force of requirement, which in comparison to her mothers’ dictating and commanding places her in a much weaker and less authoritative position.

In the selected sequences, requestives are the only directives in which Erika shows more instances than her mother. She draws on begging and imploring (ES 7, 8) as the weakest type of requestives which in contrast with directives such as requirement, prohibitives and advisory (here warning) paints her as a submissive character, which, in spite of her instances of insulting (ES 14, 17), puts her in a much weaker position. Her submissiveness towards her mother is further evidenced by her SAs of acknowledgment (expressive) of apologizing (ES 22, 20) through which she expresses her regret and apology for something in which the mother’s share of guilt is not less than hers’. According to Harnish and Bach’s (1979) proposed schematic framework for apology, in uttering apology, S apologizes to H for D if S expresses: i. regret for having done A to H, and ii. the intention that H believes that S regrets having done A to H. Erika expresses her regret for what she has done (attacking her mother) twice (ES 21, 23). The mother believes and acknowledges Erika’s regret by uttering words of forgiveness (ES 24).

In summary, the analysis of the mother’s and daughter’s SAs above shows how the characters are strongly associated with particular types of SA and the illocutionary forces they draw upon. With the high instances of directives, specifically requirements (commanding, dictating, prohibitives) and advisories (warning), the mother is constructed as an overbearing, domineering, authoritative and arrogant character who does not observe any appropriate boundaries with her middle-aged daughter. Erika, on

the other hand, frequently uses SAs of requestives (imploring) and acknowledgment (apologizing) which portray her as a weak character who is both adored and feared by her mother. Although Erika tries to confront her mother’s authority and control, which is evident in her rare use of requirements (order), she remains construed as a submissive and yielding daughter in relation to her mother.