The Effects of Free Indirect Style in George Eliot's Middlemarch: A Reader Response Study - Anglistik
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
15
PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
The Effects of Free Indirect Style in George Eliot's Middlemarch:
A Reader Response Study
Introduction
George Eliot's novel Middlemarch (1871) has been dismissingly characterized as the
"classic realist text" for what is perceived as its presentation of the relationship
between language and reality as unproblematically mimetic and for its neutralization
of multi-perspectivism and polyvocality (Bakhtin 1981) through the presence of an
omniscient narrator subordinating all competing subjectivities (voices and
perspectives; MacCabe 1979, 15-18).1
Just as Bakhtin's concept of polyvocality is also epistemological, so is the
criticism leveled at Middlemarch. In this line of argument, Eliot's work, as a
prototype of the Victorian novel, not only gives its readers the illusion that language
provides a direct, objective, and unambiguous "window on reality" (MacCabe 1978,
15), but it also represents a classical episteme. According to Foucault, the classical
episteme is characterized by a naïve belief in the objectivity of knowledge, as yet
undisturbed by the epistemological doubt, constructivism, subjectivism, multi-
perspectivism, and polyvocality of the modern episteme (1970, 58-61; 244-73). He
uses spatial imagery to differentiate (a) the hierarchical organization of knowledge
around one center in a unified space (classical episteme) from (b) fragmented
organization around multiple centers and dispersed rays in a fractured space (modern
episteme).2
Such an unambiguous attribution to Middlemarch (as the "classic realist novel") of
these alleged shortcomings has met with resistance on several levels (e.g., Roberts
1982; Miller 1987). For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on claims regarding
the narrator, specifically those rejecting the portrayal that an omniscient and
1 A more favorable view of Middlemarch is presented in Alan Palmer's (2005; 2010a; 2010b)
discussions of the novel from the perspective of socially distributed cognition, or
"intermental thought." Palmer argues that the collective inhabitants of the town of
Middlemarch in the novel function like an extended social mind.
2 Since Foucault's terminology was directly adopted in the questionnaires of the empirical
studies presented below, we provide the relevant passage from The Order of Things in full
length here: "It is thus apparent that the theory of sub-kingdoms does not simply add a
supplementary taxonomic frame to the previous traditional classification; it is linked to the
constitution of a new space of identities and differences. A space without essential continuity.
A space that is posited from the very outset in the form of fragmentation. A space crossed by
lines which sometimes diverge and sometimes intersect. In order to designate its general form,
then, it is necessary to substitute for the image of the continuous scale, which had been
traditional in the eighteenth century, […] that of a radiation, or rather of a group of centres
from which there spreads outwards a multiplicity of beams" (1970, 272).
Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 31.1 (Spring 2020): 15-29.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)16 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
omnipotent narrator is the sole organizing principle that subordinates all other
subjectivities (voices and perspectives). The presence of such a subordinating,
omniscient narrator, who has often been associated with the guard of the central
watch tower of Bentham's Panopticon (e.g., in Bender 1987, 203; Miller 1988, 24;
and Seltzer 1984, 54),3 would effectively place Middlemarch in the classical episteme
described earlier.
According to J. Hillis Miller, for instance, one feature of Eliot's writing
contributing to its multi-perspectivism and polyvocality is her constant shifting
for personal use only / no unauthorized distribution
between the implicit gender of the narrator: "[…] readers of Middlemarch or Eliot's
work as a whole will know that a contrast between male and female imaginations is a
major feature of her work" (1987, 68).4 Another observation along these lines, which
applies not only to Eliot's novel but the Victorian novel in general, is that their
narrator is no longer truly omniscient (Roberts 1982, 43). Rather than consistently
functioning as an appropriating conduit for characters' subjectivities, the narrator's
Winter Journals
perspective and voice, although pervasive, stand alongside other, co-present,
subjectivities in the narrative presentation. Miller puts this point as follows:
The term 'omniscient narrator' has tended to obscure clear understanding of the
narrating voice in Victorian fiction. The theological overtones of the word "omniscient"
suggest that such a narrator is like a God, standing outside the time and space of the
action, looking down on the characters with the detachment of a sovereign spectator
who sees all, knows all, judges all, from a distance. The narrators of Victorian novels
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
rarely have this sort of omniscience. The perfect knowledge is rather that of pervasive
presence than that of transcendent vision. (1968, 63-64)
Like Miller, but for different reasons, David Lodge (1992) rejects the notion that the
Victorian novel's omniscient narrator represents the classical episteme with its related
naïve "window on reality" theory of language. Lodge argues directly against
MacCabe's notion that the omniscient narrator's subjectivity in Middlemarch
functions as the supreme, univocal ordering principle to which all other "discourses"
are subordinated. He suggests instead that "free indirect speech" complicates such
univocal categorization:
If we are looking for a single formal feature which characterises the realist novel of the
nineteenth century, it is surely not the domination of the characters' discourses by the
narrator's discourse […] but the extensive use of free indirect speech, which obscures
and complicates the distinction between the two types of discourse. (Lodge 1992, 52)
Whether or not readers perceive this co-presence of subjectivities that "free indirect
speech" allegedly introduces, and if they do, whether it has a dispersion effect
resulting in the lack of any privileged conscious subjectivity, as Lodge would have it,
is an open empirical question. In this paper, we will present two empirical studies
aimed at contributing to the preceding discussion by examining whether free indirect
3 We thank Jan Alber for pointing this out to us.
4 On this aspect of Eliot's writing, see also Schabert (1992).
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 17
style (henceforth FIS5) introduces actual readers to co-present subjectivities (multi-
perspectivism and/or polyvocality), and if so, whether it introduces the "gnawing
epistemological doubt" (Lodge 1992, 47) through a dispersion of subjectivities that
would warrant seeing the Victorian novel as the transitional genre Roberts holds it to
be (1982, 43). We will first provide a definition and example of FIS, followed by a
brief discussion of terminology and an overview of the scholarly debate regarding its
effect.
Free Indirect Style and Its Near Neighbors
Theories of free indirect style (FIS) have provided and continue to provide diverging
accounts of its characteristics and of its effects on the reader. This is at least in part
due to terminological disagreement and imprecision and, at times, conflation of free
indirect speech with free indirect thought and discourse. Following Eric Rundquist
(2017) and Violeta Sotirova (2006; 2011; 2013), we take FIS to encompass not only
these different forms of indirect speech and thought presentation, but rather
represented subjectivity or consciousness in general. We adopt Rundquist's definition
of FIS as:
[…] the unsubordinated expression of a character's subjectivity alongside narratorial
deictics for tense and person. It represents the consciousness of a third-person subject in
a language that is not necessarily their own. Often, the 'speaker' or locutionary agent of
the language, whether narrator or author, is obfuscated and all but effaced by a
character's subjectivity, so that one has the impression of gaining direct, unmediated
access to the character's mind through the mimetic, representational function of the
discourse. (2017, 45)
The following example from the opening pages of Eliot's Middlemarch, which
formed part of the passages that participants in the studies reported here responded to,
will serve to illustrate FIS. The description of the different FIS criteria follows
Brinton (1980), as presented in Sotirova (2006). The passage presents the protagonist
Dorothea's reflections on the prospects of marriage for herself and her sister Celia:
That he should be regarded as a suitor to herself would have seemed to her a ridiculous
irrelevance. Dorothea, with all her eagerness to know the truths of life, retained very
childlike ideas about marriage. She felt sure that she would have accepted the judicious
Hooker, if she had been born in time to save him from that wretched mistake he made
in matrimony; or John Milton when his blindness had come on; or any of the other
great men whose odd habits it would have been glorious piety to endure; but an amiable
handsome baronet, who said "Exactly" to her remarks even when she expressed
uncertainty, – how could he affect her as a lover? The really delightful marriage must
be that where your husband was a sort of father, and could teach you even Hebrew, if
you wished it. (Eliot 1997, 10)
In this passage there is a gradual shift from the narrator's discourse (i.e., diegesis in
Plato's sense) to the character's discourse (i.e., mimesis in Plato's sense). In the first
5 More on this terminological choice and how it relates to free indirect speech and discourse
below.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)18 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
sentences, as well as those preceding this passage, Dorothea's subjectivity is clearly
presented through the internal focalization of a third-person narrator. Gradually, this
narratorial mediation and subordination is replaced with an increasingly mimetic and
direct presentation of her subjectivity. Arguably, this introduces multi-perspectivism
and polyvocality in which readers may perceive the co-presence of two autonomous
subjectivities, the narrator's and Dorothea's. Drawing on Brinton and Sotirova, the
following paragraphs will present a few of the linguistic markers of FIS responsible
for this shift.
In the first sentence of the presented passage, use of the third-person reflexive
pronoun "herself" (instead of the personal pronoun "her") begins slightly to
undermine subordination of the expression of Dorothea's subjectivity to that of the
narrator. The sentence immediately following reads like a textbook example of an
omniscient third-person narrator by referring to the protagonist by name (rather than
using a pronoun). That mode of reference is a clear expression of a somewhat
patronizing narratorial subjectivity, telling the reader about Dorothea from an
omniscient perspective. Besides the stylistic markers, the content of the second
sentence clearly establishes the narrator's superordinate subjectivity, since it
comments on a naïveté of Dorothea's that she herself is not aware of.
However, in the sentence beginning with, "She felt sure that she would have
accepted the judicious Hooker," Dorothea's subjectivity, as expressed through her
voice, thoughts, feelings, or perceptions, begins to emerge as an unsubordinated
expression. This becomes clear not only from what is presented, namely Dorothea's
somewhat naïve and immature Puritan passion mingled with a penchant for pathos,
but also how it is presented stylistically. The proper name is replaced by the third-
person pronoun "she" and becomes the subject of consciousness, and it presents a
veritable barrage of "lexical items that express the character's emotions, attitudes,
judgements, evaluations and beliefs" (Sotirova 2006, 112). This mode of expression
seemingly provides unmediated access to Dorothea's thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions, as expressions of her subjectivity ("judicious Hooker," "wretched
mistake," "great men whose odd habits it would have been glorious piety to endure;
but an amiable handsome baronet; delightful; even;" our italics). Moreover, after "but
an amiable handsome baronet," present time deictics ("even when she expressed
uncertainty") are woven into the narrative past tense ("who said 'Exactly'") "to suggest
simultaneity of the [depicted] moment of consciousness with an event in the narrative
past" (Sotirova 2006, 111).
Lastly, the FIS passage quoted above includes repetitions, clauses with initial
conjunctions ("or"), a "non-embeddable, independent clause of direct quotation"
(Sotirova 2006, 111) in the form of a direct (rhetorical) question ("how could he
affect her as a lover?"), as well as the inclusive use of the second-person pronoun
"you" ("The really delightful marriage must be that where your husband was a sort of
father, and could teach you even Hebrew, if you wished it."). Arguably, these FIS
features collectively give the impression that we are gaining access to the immediate,
unsubordinated expression of Dorothea's subjectivity.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 19
Whether FIS, such as present in the passage above, introduces two autonomously
co-present subjectivities, and by extension metalinguistic polyvocality and
perspectival indeterminacy through dispersion, as Lodge, Miller, and Roberts argue,
has been a topic of sustained debate. Although the positions within this debate are
normally referred to as the single (e.g., Fludernik 1993; 2009; Gunn 2004) vs. dual
voice perspective (e.g., Ducrot et al. 1991; Pascal 1977; Sotirova 2006), Rundquist
has recently suggested that it is crucial to move away from a model of FIS within
which all consciousness and subjectivity takes linguistic form. In his view, there is
much to be gained from expanding the concept to include free indirect perception,
which potentially includes characters' non-linguistic experiences besides speech,
discourse, and thought (2017, 1-63; see also Banfield 1982; 1991). He argues that
"the narrator and character can co-exist simultaneously in FIS as two subjects. Instead
of instantiating a 'dual voice' [polyvocality], these situations are more adequately
described as dual subjectivity" (52; original emphasis).
The perhaps most well-known scholar to reject the notion that FIS may present the
reader with two autonomous and co-present subjectivities is Fludernik (1993). In her
view, the potential ambiguity FIS creates in relation to whose voice or subjectivity is
presented is not to be resolved by linguistic description. Rather, she claims, "the
reader's inferencing activity" (Fludernik 1993, 452) will establish the passage as
either the narrator's expression or a character's utterance. The few empirical studies
investigating readers' "inferencing activity" in response to FIS (e.g., Bray 2007;
Fletcher and Monterosso 2016; Hakemulder and Koopman 2010; Sotirova 2006) have
not provided conclusive evidence in favor of either the single- or the dual-voice
(subjectivity) hypothesis. In our view, the ambiguous results of these studies are
partly due to the fact that they have not followed Banfield's (1982; 1991) and
Rundquist's (2017) lead in shifting to the language of 'subjectivity' as a more adequate
description (and assessment) of what is at stake in FIS.
Thus, when reconceptualizing the debate in these terms, one possibility is that in
FIS the narrator represents the subjectivity of the character; consequently, the reader
perceives the character's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions as mediated and
presented through the narrator's voice and perspective (single voice/subjectivity
hypothesis). However, another possibility is that FIS presents the reader with two
autonomous co-present subjectivities, the narrator's and the character's (dual
voice/subjectivity hypothesis). Rather than one of these functioning as "overarching
center" (Banfield 1991, 28), these subjectivities are involved in a subtle interplay and
introduce multi-perspectivism and polyvocality (Bakhtin 1981).
One version of the second proposal, following Banfield (1982; 1991) and aligning
with Foucault's discussion of the episteme, suggests that this interplay disperses the
autonomous subjectivities, equally destabilizing the subjective "presence" of the
narrator and the subjective "presence" of the character, which results in a lack of any
privileged conscious subjectivity:
The alternatives, therefore, counterpose not a theory centered on a single unitary
subject and a polyphonic theory but rather one in which a plurality of isolated and
noncommunicating points of view or centers coexist in a narrative style in which there
is no first-person, single omniscient voice, imposing a personal unity, and one in which
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)20 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
polyphony consists in a hierarchy of voices, each conceived on the model of the other,
yet one providing a single, overarching center. (Banfield 1991, 28)
In a second version (e.g., Rundquist; Sotirova), the FIS-induced co-presence of
subjectivities creates a tension that nonetheless retains coherence. In what follows, we
present two studies that, we think, help to clarify whether readers of FIS perceive the
characters' subjectivity as subordinated and mediated through the narrator's
subjectivity or, rather, autonomous co-present subjectivities, and, if the latter, whether
they are dispersed or coherent.
Study 1
Method
Participants. Sixty-four introductory students of psychology at the University of
Alberta and eighteen high school students at the Victoria High School for the Visual
and Performing Arts participated in this study; the former for partial course credit, the
latter without compensation. Fifty-eight were women (Mage 18.82, range = 15-22),
and twenty-four were men (Mage 19.57, range = 16-23).
Materials and Procedure. Participants read the first five pages of George Eliot's
novel Middlemarch, divided into six passages of roughly equal length (ca. 350
words). We evaluated the presence or absence of six formal criteria of FIS, as
identified by Brinton (1980). Although the source of these criteria is dated, its use in
our study is supported by the fact that they still are regularly referred to in current
scholarship as sound criteria for capturing the features of FIS (see, e.g., Sotirova
2006; Rundquist 2017). The six FIS criteria are presented in full length in Appendix
A. Three raters, in addition to the first author of this paper, evaluated the presence or
absence of each of these criteria for each passage, and differences were discussed
until resolved.
Subjectival Co-presence – Open-ended Response. In responding to these passages,
participants described which subjectivities they perceived in each passage in an open-
ended form, by answering the question: "Whose point(s) of view is/are presented in
the passage?" A single page-width line was provided for this response. This measure
aims at providing empirical data with which to address the single vs. dual voice
(subjectivity) question, that is, whether FIS is perceived as presenting the
subordinated character's subjectivity through that of the narrator, or alternatively,
whether it establishes the co-presence of autonomous subjectivities.
Subjectival Dispersion Rating Scale. A three-item, bipolar, mini-scale measures
the extent to which subjectivities are perceived as dispersed vs. unified. This mini-
scale, which is anchored in the Foucault passage mentioned above, aims at providing
empirical data for the discussion of whether FIS introduces a dispersion effect that
destabilizes the subjective "presence" of both the narrator and the character (Banfield
1982; Lodge 1992). Foucault uses spatial imagery to differentiate (a) the hierarchical
organization of knowledge around one center in a unified space from (b) fragmented
organization around multiple centers and dispersed rays in a fractured space. The
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 21
mini-scale asked participants to respond to the question "Which image better
describes the passage?" by rating three items on a seven-point scale between the
following poles: "unified space vs. fractured space," "closely focused rays vs.
multiple dispersed rays," and "one centre vs. multiple centres." The average internal
consistency of this three-item mini-scale was acceptable (α = .692).
Results
Of the six passages, the fifth is the one shaped by FIS. The other passages are written
in more straightforward third-person narration, with only very occasional presence of
the character's voice. To provide an appropriate contrast, we calculated the mean for
all of our measures for passages 1 through 4 and 6, and compared these means with
the responses to passage 5.
Subjectival Co-presence. We coded the open-ended questions by marking
references to the narrator with the number 1, to Dorothea with number 2, and
references to multiple subjectivities with a number 3. In response to the low-FIS
passages (1-4, and 6), on average 71% of participants perceived the narrator's
subjectivity, 6% perceived Dorothea's subjectivity, and 23% perceived multiple
subjectivities. In contrast, in the high-FIS passage (5), 44% of participants perceived
the narrator's subjectivity, 28% perceived Dorothea's subjectivity, and 28% perceived
multiple subjectivities. These findings clearly point toward an increased perception of
Dorothea's subjectivity in the high FIS-passage, and a slightly higher polyvocality or
co-presence of multiple subjectivities.
Subjectival Dispersion. The FIS-established co-presence in passage 5 did not lead
to the perception of dispersed subjectivities. Rather, passage 5 was perceived as the
least dispersed and most unified of all six passages, as the responses to the
Subjectival Dispersion Scale presented in Figure 1 below indicate.
Discussion of Results
Although the narrator's subjectivity is pervasive in the low FIS and the high FIS
passages, the fact that, on average, the narrator's subjectivity is perceived 27% less
and Dorothea's 22% more, and that 28% of participants perceive multiple
subjectivities in the high FIS passage as opposed to the low FIS passage, supports the
notion that FIS establishes the co-presence of two subjectivities, at least at the textual
level. But to what extent are these findings conclusive regarding the single vs. dual
subjectivity debate?
On the one hand, they clearly show that for 22% of the participants in this study,
FIS undermined the presence of an omniscient narrator who subordinates all
competing subjectivities. On the other hand, however, the 5% increase in the
perception of multiple subjectivities does not conclusively indicate that readers
perceive an FIS-induced co-presence, as opposed to establishing the passage as either
an expression of the narrator's or an expression of Dorothea's subjectivity, as
Fludernik (1993, 452) suggests.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)22 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
Figure 1: Mean Subjectivity Dispersion. Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated
differences in the mean ratings of the six passages presented here, F(1, 77) = 4.77, p < .003;
and post hoc comparisons indicated that, in passage 5 (high FIS), subjectivity dispersal ratings
were lower than in all of the other passages. In other words, in the FIS passage, ratings of
dispersed subjectivity were lower than in other passages.
To replicate the co-presence findings, while also pursuing the latter distinction
empirically, we conducted a second study with a slightly modified subjectival co-
presence measure. This second study served also as an attempt to replicate the
seemingly counterintuitive findings that the FIS-induced subjectival co-presence did
not lead to subjectival dispersion, as Lodge (1992) and Banfield (1982) suggest, but
rather to increased coherence.
Study 2
Method
Participants. Eighty-three undergraduate psychology students at the University of
Alberta participated in Study 2 for partial course credit. Fifty-five were women (Mage
22.85, range = 19-47), and twenty-seven were men (Mage 23.41, range = 18-30).
Materials and Procedure. As in Study 1, participants read the opening five pages
of Eliot's Middlemarch, divided into six passages and completed a number of rating
scales after each passage.
Subjectival Co-presence Ratings. In an effort to replicate the subjectival co-
presence findings, while also being able to determine to what extent each reader
perceived co-present subjectivities, or rather chose between the narrator's and
Dorothea's, as Fludernik (1993, 452) suggests, we optimized our measure of
subjectival co-presence. Instead of replying in an open-ended form to perceived
subjectivities, participants after each passage were asked to separately rate the extent
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 23
to which they perceived the narrator's subjectivity ("This passage seemed to reflect
the narrator's point of view") as well as Dorothea's ("This passage seemed to reflect
Dorothea's point of view"). These items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging
from 0 ("I don't agree at all") to 6 ("I totally agree").
We assessed the relative presence of the narrator's and the protagonist's
subjectivities by calculating the difference between (1) readers' ratings of the extent to
which the segment reflected Dorothea's (D) subjectivity and (2) their ratings of the
extent to which the segment reflected the narrator's (N) subjectivity. Calculating this
difference score allowed us to capture not only whether and when the subjectivities
were perceived as equally present, but also the degree to which one outweighed the
other, where no co-presence was perceived. This method provided us with an
indication of how balanced the perceived co-presence was, while also eliminating the
effect of individual differences in ratings, such as consistently rating perceived
subjectivities low, for instance.
Subjectival Dispersion Rating Scale. In Study 2, we employed exactly the same
method and procedure to measure subjectival dispersion as we did in Study 1.
Segment Level Analysis of Passage 5. To look at what happens not only at the
passage level, but also at the sentence level within a passage of FIS, we asked
participants to reread passage 5 (high FIS), subdivided into twelve roughly sentence
length-segments (see Appendix B). After each of these twelve segments, they again
completed the Subjectival Co-presence Ratings.
Results
Subjectival Co-presence. Repeated measures ANOVA indicate that the difference
between the perceived subjectivity of Dorothea as opposed to that of the narrator was
least in response to passage 5 (F(1, 81) = 12.95, p < .001) which means that just as in
Study 1, FIS evoked the co-presence of autonomous subjectivities.
Subjectival Dispersion. Another result replicated from Study 1 was the lower
subjectivity dispersal ratings in the high FIS passage, as opposed to those low in FIS.
Repeated measures ANOVA indicated differences in the mean ratings of the six
passages on the dispersed subjectivity ratings (F(1, 81) = 7.52, p < .001) and post hoc
comparisons indicated that these were lower in passage 5 (high FIS passage) than in
all of the other passages (except passage 4). In other words, FIS contributed to the
perception of coherence, rather than dispersion.
Segment-level Co-presence. New in Study 2 were results for the subjectival co-
presence ratings for each of the twelve sentence-length segments that passage 5 (high
FIS) was divided into. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the segments
containing five or more of Brinton's (1980) FIS markers (segments 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12)
had higher average co-presence scores than the segments that contained three or fewer
FIS markers (segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), F(1, 80) = 33.86, p < .001 (MlowFIS = –1.02;
MhiFIS = 0.67). This confirms at the sentence level what we found on the passage level,
namely that FIS introduces the co-presence of subjectivities.
However, this overall contrast between high FIS and low FIS segments obscures a
temporal structure that becomes evident when the alternating pattern of low FIS
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)24 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
(segments 1-5), high FIS (segment 6), low FIS (segments 7-8), and high FIS
(segments 9-12) is considered.
0.6
0.4
0.2
Co-Presence of Subjectivities
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
low FID high FID low FID high FID
Figure 2: A visual representation of two cycles within passage 5, within each of which there is
a movement from low- to high-FIS. The closer to zero, the more Dorothea's subjectivity was
perceived as equally co-present as the narrator's; the more negative the values, the more the
narrator's subjectivity was perceived, and vice versa. Finally, repeated measures ANOVA
indicated that participants' ratings on the subjectival co-presence scores parallel the oscillating
pattern of these two cycles of low- to high-FIS segments.
Discussion of Results
Just as in Study 1, we again found the passage level co-presence and dispersed
subjectivity effects. This replication of our findings adds further support to the notion
that in FIS, rather than an omniscient narrator subordinating all competing
subjectivities, autonomous, co-present subjectivities are established. Our new
measure of subjectival co-presence not only allowed us to replicate this effect, it
further provided a measure of the balance and degree of perceived co-presence, and
the findings undermine Fludernik's notion that "the reader's inferencing activity"
(Fludernik 1993, 452) establishes an FIS passage as either the narrator's or the
character's subjectivity. Our findings clearly showed that some readers perceive a co-
presence of both.
The replication in Study 2 of our subjectival dispersion findings from Study 1
provided further evidence that the FIS-established co-presence provides coherence,
rather than dispersion, as Lodge (1992) and Banfield (1982) would have it. And,
lastly, the segment-level analysis of the effects of FIS provided insight into the
temporal unfolding of the perceived co-presence of subjectivities, in which the
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 25
perceived co-presence developed in parallel to the degree of FIS in the segments of
passage 5.
General Discussion
The results of the two studies presented here and the pattern of successful replication
within them pose a direct challenge to the single-subjectivity (voice) hypothesis of
FIS (e.g., Fludernik 1993; 2009; Gunn 2004), namely to the notion that in FIS the
reader perceives the character's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions as mediated and
presented through the narrator's subjectivity, or that readers will infer a single
subjectivity where the text affords a co-presence. Instead, this series of replicated
results supports the notion that FIS presents the reader with two autonomous co-
present subjectivities.
But does this FIS-induced polyvocality and multi-perspectivism undermine the
coherence of the perceived (discursive) space, and introduce "a plurality of isolated
and noncommunicating points of view or centers" that Banfield (1991, 28), or the
"gnawing epistemological doubt" that Lodge (1992, 47) suggest? Our findings
indicate that the opposite is the case. Already at the passage level, readers in our
studies when asked, "Which image better describes the passage?" repeatedly chose
the unified over the fractured space, the closely focused rays over the multiple
dispersed rays, and one center over multiple centers, when responding to the passage
high in FIS (passage 5). That is, FIS established the co-presence of two autonomous
subjectivities and coherence, rather than fragmentation. This result was repeated at
the sentence-level analysis: higher FIS led to higher co-presence.
Worthy of further consideration and study, however, is the gradual unfolding of a
reader's perception of this autonomous co-presence of subjectivities in FIS and how it
establishes coherence rather than dispersion and fragmentation. What our segment-
level findings begin to point toward is the importance of considering the temporal
dimension of the reading experience. One related possibility in this regard is to
consider the possibility that FIS introduces not two subjectivities, but three. Take, for
instance, the following sentence from Middlemarch: "The really delightful marriage
must be that where your husband was a sort of father, and could teach you even
Hebrew, if you wished it" (Eliot 1997, 10). Arguably, the FIS features in this
sentence, such as use of the inclusive second-person pronoun "you," invite the
reader's own subjectivity into the mix during the unfolding reading experience. Such a
proposal aligns with a phenomenological model of perception and reflection (e.g.,
Husserl 2004). Another relevant task for future empirical studies is the clarification of
the role of irony in FIS and its effect on the kind of FIS-established subjectival co-
presence that builds coherence rather than dispersion, which we found in the studies
presented here of readers' responses to Eliot's Middlemarch.
Works Cited
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. "Discourse in the Novel." The Dialogic Imagination.
Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Transl. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981. 259-422.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)26 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
Banfield, Ann. Unspeakable Sentences. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.
Banfield, Ann. "L'écriture et le non-dit." Diacritics 21.4 (1991): 21-31.
Bender, John. Imagining the Penitentiary: Fiction and the Architecture of Mind in
Eighteenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press,
1987.
Bray, Joe. "The Effects of Free Indirect Discourse: Empathy Revisited."
Contemporary Stylistics. Eds. Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell. London:
Continuum, 2007. 56-68.
Brinton, Laurel. "'Represented Perception:' A Study in Narrative Style." Poetics 9.4
(1980): 363-381.
Ducrot, Oswald, Catherine Porter, Kara Rabbitt, and Linda Waugh. "Charles Bally
and Pragmatics." Diacritics 21.4 (1991): 3-19.
Eliot, George. Middlemarch. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Fletcher, Angus, and John Monterosso. "The Science of Free-Indirect Discourse:
An Alternate Cognitive Effect." Narrative 24.1 (2016): 82-103.
DOI:10.1353/nar.2016.0004.
Fludernik, Monika. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The
Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London and New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Fludernik, Monika. An Introduction to Narratology. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New
York: Random House, 1970.
Gunn, Daniel P. "Free Indirect Discourse and Narrative Authority in Emma."
Narrative 12.1 (2004): 35-54.
Hakemulder, Jèmeljan, and Emy Koopman. "Readers Closing in on Immoral
Characters' Consciousness: Effects of Free Indirect Discourse on Response to
Literary Narratives." Journal of Literary Theory 4.1 (2010): 41-62.
DOI:10.1515/jlt.2010.004.
Husserl, Edmund. Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2004.
Lodge, David. "'Middlemarch' and the Idea of the Classic Realist Text." Middlemarch:
George Eliot. Ed. John Peck. Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1992. 45-62.
MacCabe, Colin M.J. James Joyce and the Revolution of the Word. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1979.
Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. "Aspects of Literary Response: A New
Questionnaire." Research in the Teaching of English 29 (1995): 37-58.
Miller, D.A. The Novel and the Police. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
1988.
Miller, Hillis J. The Form of Victorian Fiction. Notre Dame, IN, and London:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
Miller, Hillis J. The Ethics of Reading. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
Palmer, Alan. "Intermental Thought in the Novel: The Middlemarch Mind." Style
39.4 (2005): 427-439.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 27
Palmer, Alan. Social Minds in the Novel. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University
Press, 2010a.
Palmer, Alan. "Large Intermental Units in Middlemarch." Postclassical Narratology:
Approaches and Analyses. Eds. Jan Alber and Monika Fludernik. Columbus, OH:
The Ohio State University Press, 2010b. 83-104.
Pascal, Roy. The Dual Voice. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977.
Roberts, Ruth. "Middlemarch and the New Humanity." George Eliot: A Centenary
Tribute. Eds. Gordon S. Haight and Rosemary T. van Arsdel. London: Macmillan,
1982. 38-46.
Rundquist, Eric. Free Indirect Style in Modernism: Representations of
Consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017.
Schabert, Ina. "The Authorial Mind and the Question of Gender." Telling Stories:
Studies in Honour of Ulrich Broich on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Eds.
Elmar Lehmann and Bernd Lenz. Amsterdam: Gruner, 1992. 312-328.
Seltzer, Mark. Henry James and the Art of Power. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell
University Press, 1984.
Sotirova, Violeta. "Reader Responses to Narrative Point of View." Poetics 34.2
(2006): 108-133.
Sotirova, Violeta. D.H. Lawrence and Narrative Viewpoint. London: Continuum,
2011.
Sotirova, Violeta. Consciousness in Modernist Fiction: A Stylistic Study. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)28 PAUL SOPCAK, DON KUIKEN, AND DAVID S. MIALL
Appendix A
Brinton's (1980) Formal Criteria for Identifying Free Indirect Style,
as Presented in Sotirova (2006, 111-112)
(1) shifted pronouns: the third person she or he is the subject of consciousness; it is
the referent of the expressive content of the sentence; use of pronoun rather than
proper name; third person reflexive pronoun may occur even when there is no
third-person sentence subject;
(2) the narrative past tense and present and future time deictics are cotemporal to
suggest simultaneity of the moment of consciousness with an event in the
narrative past; special verbal past tense – imparfait, past progressive; shifted
tenses of modals with past meaning, otherwise only found in Indirect Discourse
where sequence of tenses is observed;
(3) pronouns, demonstratives, definite articles, and definite noun phrases which have
no antecedent in the previous discourse may occur;
(4) contains the non-embeddable, independent clauses of direct quotation, such as
direct questions and imperatives; contains rhetorical questions and clauses with
preposed adverbs (never) or initial conjunctions (and); interjections,
exclamations, lexical fillers, repetitions, hesitations, optative or incomplete
sentences;
(5) lexical items which express the character's emotions, attitudes, judgements,
evaluations and beliefs; qualifying adjectives, generally prenominal (dear, good,
damned), epithets, qualifying adverbs (probably, miserably), nicknames or
petnames and attitudinal nouns (fool);
(6) verbs of consciousness or of communication occur in parentheticals.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)THE EFFECTS OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE IN GEORGE ELIOT'S MIDDLEMARCH 29
Appendix B
Middlemarch Passage 5 Segmented
(Eliot 1997, 9-10)
1. Yet those who approached Dorothea, though prejudiced against her by this
alarming hearsay, found that she had a charm unaccountably reconcilable with it.
Most men thought her bewitching when she was on horseback.
2. She loved the fresh air and the various aspects of the country, and when her eyes
and cheeks glowed with mingled pleasure she looked very little like a devotee.
3. Riding was an indulgence which she allowed herself in spite of conscientious
qualms; she felt that she enjoyed it in a pagan sensuous way, and always looked
forward to renouncing it.
4. She was open, ardent, and not in the least self-admiring; indeed, it was pretty to
see how her imagination adorned her sister Celia with attractions altogether
superior to her own,
5. and if any gentleman appeared to come to the Grange from some other motive
than that of seeing Mr. Brooke, she concluded that he must be in love with Celia:
6. Sir James Chettam, for example, whom she constantly considered from Celia's
point of view, inwardly debating whether it would be good for Celia to accept
him.
7. That he should be regarded as a suitor to herself would have seemed to her a
ridiculous irrelevance.
8. Dorothea, with all her eagerness to know the truths of life, retained very childlike
ideas about marriage.
9. She felt sure that she would have accepted the judicious Hooker, if she had been
born in time to save him from that wretched mistake he made in matrimony;
10. or John Milton when his blindness had come on; or any of the other great men
whose odd habits it would have been glorious piety to endure;
11. but an amiable handsome baronet, who said "Exactly" to her remarks even when
she expressed uncertainty, – how could he affect her as a lover?
12. The really delightful marriage must be that where your husband was a sort of
father, and could teach you even Hebrew, if you wished it.
Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)Anglistik, Jahrgang 31 (2020), Ausgabe 1
© 2020 Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelberg
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)You can also read
