Il Ladro di Merendine The Sicilian detective, Montalbano, seems to have difficulty following leads; each beginning is halted. It were as if a thief was on his tail. Every beginning is snatched from his grip. Even sleep. He just cannot finger the culprit. The Sicilian author, Andrea Camilleri, seems to have great ease complicating and, later, obviating the story of Montalbano's escape from this difficulty. Camilleri mirrors and mimics Montalbano's story with his writing style. Maybe you recognize a similar synergistic tactic in this preface. CHAPTER ONE: Jolted awake from a disconcerting sleep, Montalbano starts off Il Ladro di Merendine (The Snack Thief) on the wrong foot. One that falters in step, for it is half-asleep and out of practice. Coming to, he is alerted of a murder; one that requires an immediate attention and cannot wait for a sleepy foot. Montalbano begins at a limping pace. Somebody was shot down by the docks. There is confusion as to where exactly it happened, since the victim was a traveling victim. While investigating the homicide another one occurs. Somebody was stabbed in an elevator. Montalbano goes to investigate. Chapter one ends in the stabbed man's elevator with little substantial evidence. Montalbano's numbness starts to diminish but his haze has not faded. *Note: Only the first three pages are collated correctly. Due to space restrictions, the remaining pages from the English publication will be attached at the end of the collated pages. **Reference: ‟ ___‟ = Something that was taken from the English publication (___) = Something that could/should be there [___] = An alternative meaning qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw Between the Arbiter and Arbitrator A Linguistic Review 12/13/2006 Alex Caire-Broudy A Broudy December 13, 2006 In reading, one becomes an arbitrator for language use. There are, consequentially, pragmatic platforms atop which the reader stands in trying to interpret each clause. Circumstances hitherto the moment of interpretation influence the arbitrator‟s comprehension; that is, previous assessments and/or interests influence the reader to interpolate the text with a personal (experiential) twist. So what the reader reads and what the reader cognates/interprets are different and subject to referential influence. This may cause reader of geographical background A to react differently to same text that the candidate of background B reads, granted the backgrounds are dissimilar in some respect. The reader‟s stance extends beyond the geographical realm. Language attitudes and ideologies are the most ubiquitous platforms. Myers-Scotton (2006) sublets the two under a larger domain, ethos; the, “characteristic spirit, prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community”, as defined by The Oxford English Dictionary. Since the „ethos supra-platform‟ extends beyond any one person (and encompasses both motivations); to claim an author writes with a, “characteristic spirit…of a people or community”, is rational. And, therefore; in writing, one becomes an arbiter for language use. With „the social motivations for language use‟ (Myers-Scotton; 2006) considered, one may (begin to) recognize the intricacies of linguistic analysis; and, therein, (be en route to) deduce why one would choose to write „covertly‟. For a more extensive analysis of „mood persuasion‟ we will draw on an Italian novel written by Andrea Camilleri, Il Ladro di Merendine (The Snack Thief). Camilleri is a Sicilian author who is to Italy as John Grisham is to America; he simply sells out every piece published. This currency and popularity permits a fuller diagnosis and up-to-date conclusion. The purpose of analyzing a bilingual text (there is an English version) is to widen the linguistic breadth of this investigation. However, so as not to overextend the examination‟s reach, there will be a heavier concentration in the realm of „persuasion by mood‟. Myers-Scotton (2006) explains, “how choosing a [linguistic] variety is both a tool and an index of interpersonal relationships”. References to this standalone claim will be acknowledged later. The evaluation at hand, nevertheless, elects the use of emphasis and/or lack of emphasis as the instrument(s) with which one may persuade (another‟s) mood. To this end, Camilleri chooses the subsequent linguistic varieties as points of persuasion: format and deliberate changes in format, transitioning and diglossia/code-changing with prestige switching. Next, he reinforces this content by disassembling the original arguments. With this methodology, Camilleri shows how format and subtle changes in format accompanied by gradient transitioning may, in fact, persuade equally. Despite the err that one may undo the other; when they conglomerate under one ethos (i.e. that of Camilleri) an index of „interpersonal interactions‟ materializes between the story‟s characters. And under this umbrella, there is a functional rapport between the use and disuse of emphasis; provided that, “…at the pragmatic level, all linguistic choices can be seen as indexical of a variety of social relations, rights and obligations which exist and are created between participants in a conversation”, Romaine (2004). So to take Camilleri as the director of conversation and narration in, Il Ladro di Merendine, one is able observe a more deliberate purpose in his writing style. Accordingly, Camilleri is capable of synergizing the text‟s emotive power by tactically deploying emphasis and/or the allusion of emphasis to the reader. Amidst his deliberate changes in format, there are tactful „snap shots‟ which jostle a developing event in order to shift attention from one event to another. This may happen on a larger scale (i.e. breaks/transitions in the actual text) or on a smaller one with alterations as small as a single morpheme change to declare transition. One form of „large-scale-shake-up‟ may be found (below) in format changes between narration and dialogue. This instance is significant because there are multiple levels at which the reader reacts upon the notice of such change. For example, the switch may be „explicative‟. That is, the narration may describe (project) the sentiment and chronology of the upcoming dialogue; so in following the transition‟s conclusion, the reader may take shock from the reflected synergy. For example, in chapter one of Il Ladro di Merendine, “Gli parse che quel suono gli traisse, come un virri'na, dentro un orecchio per ne'sciri dall'altro, trapandogli il cervello". (Page 9) /(“It seemed to him as if the sound were boring through [his head], like a drill, in one ear to exit through the other”. *[My translation]*) [A], is the set-up for format alteration. When the format changes to dialogue, “Pronto!” (Page 9) /(“Hey!”) [B], the „shock‟ effect is amplified because the action (dialogue) mirrors the agitation experienced in the narration‟s prelude. Essentially, Part B follows the dynamic that Part A described; the result is compounded so that A and B are, in fact, interpreted as all one part. Herein, B fulfills the action A illustrates and may be considered purposeful explication; “the explanation or development of an idea or theory [that] show[s] its implications”, Encarta Dictionaries (2007). This is particularly significant from a bilingual perspective. Because Camilleri constructs the text with a universal linguistic mechanism (explication), the resultant language attitudes and ideologies may translate easily between Sicilian and English. Similarity between the idioms ought to be acknowledged in this case; however, also recognize that incompatible idioms may have had matching force upon the reader, as well. That is, idioms of a similar nature housed by differing language contents may be understood in each its own (native) respect; as how, “like pealing the skin of the egg” [Italian idiom] and, “like walking on eggshells” [English idiom] are comparable. By employing emphasis through non-discriminate language explication Camilleri creates an easily interpretable bilingual text – one, which may have otherwise sustained grander alterations. This exemplifies Camilleri‟s language use as an arbiter considering bilingual arbitration. Clearly, the format is deliberate. However, while the congruence of narration and dialogue enunciates and reinforces the format‟s significance, the opposite may result as well. The change in narration/dialogue or, in the following instance, dialogue/dialogue may disagree with the expected outcome and thus render a surprised reader. One may consider this a faltering in language leverage. For example, upon greeting a dignitary, the protagonist, Montalbano, says, “Ciao” (Page 12) /(“Hello”), only to receive the unappreciated response, “Ciao un cavalo” (Page 12) /(Hello a cabbage [Hi my ass!].) Notwithstanding the result‟s deliberate change in format, the incongruence remains a „shock factor‟ and may be used for an emphasis opposite to the overt one seen previously. While the instance may be glossed over, consider it a case of „reverse explication‟, instead. The casual dismissal may not be considered a subtle change in format because it purposefully alters the situation‟s prestige. So while it provides a „covert‟, opposite emphasis and therein offers an unanticipated result, it is still not excused from transforming the mood. The corresponding ease between both Sicilian and English variations shows, in fact, language selection as the fulcrum, across which the cross-lingual interpretation pivots. Once again, this change is calculated; the reader‟s interpretation is not to be overlooked. Another way to leverage language is to balance the pragmatic and syntactic structures across bilingual platforms. This may counter the weight of lingual behavior unavailable to the second language (English). For example, Italian has a system of derivational morphemes which may more thoroughly transform a verb to correspond with the subject/action/tense/etc. than English. It is true that both Italian and English change the verb, for instance, to the 3rd person singular when creating an imperative. It is also verifiable that both languages have regular and irregular tenses. However, what empowers Italian to outperform English in the imperative form is its concurrence between morphology and phonology. More often than English, Italian tenses are alike in terms of morphology and phonology. Moreover, they tend to mimic one another (because of the more structured pragmatics of Italian). So the constancy of Italian morphology (i.e. the 1st person singular of any verb ends in –o, whereas English varies more greatly), provides a firmer foundation for repetitive morphology to be mimicked by repetitive phonology; thus, delivering a stronger presentation to the reader of Italian. Camilleri uses pragmatics and syntax as the counterweights to Italian‟s „advantage‟. In the subsequent example, the clauses are short and succinct. "Si susi', ando' in cucina, rapri' il frigorifero, si scolo' mezza bottiglia di acqua aggila'ta." (Page 9) /“He jumped [up], ran to the kitchen, opened the refrigerator, sucked down half a bottle of icy water”. Notice the irregular verb „ran‟ in the translation. It does not fit in with the other repetitive phonology. Propose Camilleri had wanted to provide the Italian sequence greater detail; the verbs would have remained sound, however; if the English version were changed to, “He jumped up out of his bed, he ran into the kitchen, opened the refrigerator door in a great hurry, sucked down half a bottle of water icy as the North Pole”, the emphasis would have been „lost in translation‟. By curtailing the sentence so as to provide an English syntax more representative of the Italian morphology/phonology, the scramble retains its intensity. Consider how the English version would look if it were to follow Italian pragmatics without an adjusted syntax. The emphasis would be lacking and the translated format would suffer. It is by this circumstance that Camilleri is able to build and balance a persuasive, translatable momentum. With the impetus now en route, one must wonder in which direction it might lead, and why. Essentially, what will be the product of this building anticipation? And, what is the significance behind this progressive mood change? To oblige these questions, one must further analyze the inner-/substructure of said swing. One must delve into the instances of incongruence. But where are they? For this search, we will look specifically to the contrasting occasions of diglossic and classic prestige code-switching. While subtle and subconscious in passing, these instances lend to the reader a good deal of information about mood changing. Therefore, they are less gradient than they could otherwise appear. On page 11, for example, one may see this change in the diglossic prestige switch between narration and dialogue. One may also see how this change affects emphasis and, in turn, the reader‟s reaction. The narration ends with a proper, modern description, “Quella spiegazione l'aveva confezionata per comodo, per scarricarsi la coscienza e farsi in pace altre due ore di sonno" /“That explanation he [Catarella] had confessed to him [Montalbano] was put aside for comfort, to salvage his conscious and to have another two hours of peaceful sleep” (*My non-literal translation*). With this example, the gender agreement, tenses, pragmatics, syntax, grammar, etc. are all correct and in accord with modern, Standard Italian. However, the following dialogue illustrates how changing the prestige may alter one‟s mood and considerations of the description antecedent to the dialogue. "Non c'e' nisciuno assoluto!" /“There is no one absolutely certain!”. (This corresponds with the dialogue preceding the narration above.) But as one may notice, the dialogue is native Sicilian while the narration is modern, Standard Italian. This is a sign of incongruence one might not immediately recognize but would nonetheless cognate/see. Therefore, the diglossia is a (subconscious) sign of where the momentum may lead. Now that the direction has been clarified, one may look to the reason or result of the mood change. In reviewing this, we will use a different example; one containing classic prestige code-switching. The narrative sentence, "I linzo'la, nel sudatizzo del sonno agitato per via del chilo e mezzo di sarde a beccafico che la sera avanti si era sba'fato, gli si erano strettamente arravugliate torno torno il corpo, gli parse d'essere addiventato una mummia", provides a situation of such code-switching. Why, how? The interposed instances of pure Sicilian or modified Italian to represent Sicilian will answer the why. The analyzation of this sentence as a whole will provide the how. Let us review first the why; that is, scrutinize the words/phrases in bold print. With, “I linzóla” is Sicilian for “i lenzuoli” (the sheets), the sort of metathesis/deletion found represents a „lazier‟ lifestyle typically associated with Southern Italy. The modification clearly indicates a Sicilian lexicon. “Sudatizzo”, however, is half Sicilian and half Standard Italian. That is, the root „suda‟ (sweat) is associative to Italian (standard); however, the affix “-tizzo” is more indicative of Sicilian because it shortens the length of what could have been a longer standard description. Once again, „laziness‟ represents a Southern attitude. (The continual typicality of Southerners as lazy may be referenced from their derogatory label, “terrini” (little land-workers); it classifies them as living off the land like parasites, without any additional labor [of which Northerners assume with their label as „little workers‟].) “Sarde” is Sicilian for „sardines‟, a term simply inherent to Sicily. Next, the example, “si era sbáfato” is incongruent in two ways, but analogous to Standard Italian in one important way. It is the dependent part of the Italian subjunctive. With the Standard, it is considered more prestigious to use the subjunctive as it is relevant. (In fact, there is an annual television special in Italy, which awards the „TV personality‟ with the most extensive use of the subjunctive a „gag prize‟.) However, for the most part, the youth and uneducated of Italy tend to use the imperfect (seen with „era‟). The subjunctive indicator, che (that), causes the dependent part to use the subjunctive tense. This would have been more accurately, „che la sera Avanti si sia sbáfato‟; utilizing the „educated‟ conjugation. „Sbafare‟ is an Italian standard form of verbiage (to wolf down, guzzle, bail); however, the accented -a indicates a heavier head aspiration. This, in turn, makes the conjugated verb easier to say. However, the clause references Standard Italian in the respect that the syntax and reflexive usage are correct. The phrase “torno torno” exhibits reduplication, something not typically found in Standard Italian but something utilized in the South. So the interposing of Sicilian (type) phrases/verbiage shows an intended „shake-up‟ in mood. Whether the reader interprets the mood swing subconsciously or otherwise may differ between readers. But all in all, prestige code-switching may be identified in this example and it changes the significance of the sentence greatly. At this point, the differences in format and differences in transitioning have been reviewed. Keep in mind that while these are the most representative of mood persuasion, others certainly exist. Also, the examples given are choices by the arbiter; they only residually affect the arbitrator. The effect is a swing in momentum, a product of the attitudes and ideologies projected onto the reader and how she reacts. But what is the overall product? The story. And this examination‟s overall story? It is the story of language use and its extreme prevalence to (social) influence. As this has been a continuing theme, though, it would be better to provide a new perspective. For instance, how has this examination, a linguistic bilingual review, affected you? It has encompassed some of the more noticeable lessons of this semester‟s class and, in fact, influenced some new ways of thinking. It is the practical application of our curriculum and involves the arbiter as much as the arbitrator. It has also revealed another platform on which you may stand; a new perspective. And, as Myers-Scotton said, “…choosing a [linguistic] variety is both a tool and an index of interpersonal relationships”. You have seen this among the mixed varieties of language used in, Il Ladro di Merendine and in the language selection of this paper. What will you take from all this? What did I explicitly show and what will you acquire from it? That is the story of (my) emphasis; that is our interpersonal relationship.