Erik Kan
Dr. R. Knooihuizen
LET006B05 (2010–2011)
4 July 2011
Layering is the usage of utterances to convey a message that would not be understandable when taken out of its context. Clark uses the word layering to indicate that people intend to send out a whole different signal than what the utterance would mean when taken out of context. Layers can as such manifest through the usage of sarcasm, jokes, acting or telling stories. While layering seems easy to understand, in works of fiction the number of layers can grow quickly, because of hidden themes and motifs, quotations by characters, and plays within plays. Sometimes the principles of layering proposed by Clark are violated by authors, to create interesting effects on the work, mostly comedic ones, as evident by the play within a play in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream. In addition, Clark overlooks the implied audiences he creates by adding implied authors, while there is no reason for doing so, and no evidence that such an implied audience exists.
Basically, any statement that expresses something that is not true is an example of layering. In Clark’s first example about Margaret and Ken talking about tutoring sessions this is the case as well:
Ken: and I’m cheap, - - -
Margaret: I’ve always felt that about you, .
Ken: oh shut up,
( - - laughs) fifteen bob a lesson at home, -
(Clark 353)
In this piece of conversation there are two layers. In the first and bottom layer, the two participants are having a conversation about the price of tutoring sessions, while Margaret makes a joke. In the second layer, both Ken and Margaret join a project in which they both assume that Margaret spoke the truth when she said that Ken was cheap; they create implied versions of themselves. Meanwhile, in layer 1, the actual Ken and Margaret pretend that the actions in the above layer really happen (Clark 354). They both recognize Margaret’s statement as a joke. Clark’s second example involves acting. Scripted conversation too uses layers, since it is expressing something that is not true. Instead of the participants in the joint project creating implied images of themselves, they instead create images of the character they are representing. As such, the difference with the first example is that all conversation takes place in the second layer, not just some part of it. In fact, whenever someone makes a joke as the character he or she is playing, another layer is added on top of the second in which the characters played by the actors create implied images of themselves.
The characters created in higher layers have limited knowledge of context. Clark argues that participants in higher layers have no knowledge about the layers below them. While this is fundamentally true, there are some exceptions to this rule, namely in scripted conversation. An example is provided later with Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream. The context available to characters in each layer is called a domain of action (Clark 355). Domains of actions are, just like the characters, implied versions of the actual context. In the case of jokes and sarcasm, the domain of action is exactly the same as the actual context, but in the case of movies and plays, the usage of props and other stage materials serve to transform stages into specific contexts. A good example is Beth and Alan’s conversation in which they pretend to be gold diggers in Dakota (Clark 356).
Domains of action are better explained with another example. As mentioned before, there are other ways to create layers in conversation. Acting is one of those layers. Illustrating this is this example, adding to Clark’s tendency to use cowboy stories:
Bronco Burt: this town ain't big enough for the both of us- unless we can reach some sort of mutually acceptable compromise
Scottish Sam: aye
In this example the second domain of action is clearer than Margaret and Ken’s conversation provided earlier. In fact, there is no trace at all of any layers existing below this one. This is because in scripted conversations the utterances as well as the context are a part of the created domain. Theoretically the same thing happened with the tutoring session example: everything was recreated, except the situation in the created domain was exactly the same as the actual situation, so nothing changed. In contrast, the situation in this example is completely different: Bronco Burt is an actor, “this town” is a film set, and so forth. Moreover, the pronouns Bronco Burt uses do not refer to his actor colleague, but to Scottish Sam, the fictional character he represents in the created domain.
When playing a pretending game, the participants rely on two principles, of imagination and appreciation (Clark 359). When someone in the bottom layer has his or her character in the second layer address his partner, that person is required to respond in the second layer as well. Violation of these principles results in awkward situations:
Alan: behold my mighty stallion- queen mclightning
Ken: dude- horses don’t have wheels
Ken is not joining his friend’s project of imagining a western-style domain, and violates some of the two principles here: either he fails in imagining what Alan intended to create in the second layer completely, or he does not want to play along and refuses to join his proposed project. It is difficult to discern between principles in this way, but it becomes easier when applied to something like the tutoring session example given earlier. Ken could unintentionally violate the principle of imagination by not recognizing Margaret’s statement as a joke, or consciously violate the second principle by ignoring her statement completely. As such, the fundamental difference between the two principles is that the first one can only be violated without intention to do so, and the second one is only able to be violated consciously.
Clark’s proposed principals, however, are flawed in a way that they do not incorporate scripted conversation. In the following exchange, assume that Alan and Ken are actors in a western-style film:
Alan: you’re cheating- I can see a five of spades up your sleeve
Ken: you’re wrong- it’s actually a five of clubs
Alan: Ken . - you’re supposed to stand up and challenge me to a gunfight
In this example, Ken is not acting according to the script of the play or movie that they are acting in: Ken’s line is not scripted, and therefore induces a response from Alan that also diverges from the original project. Ken is clearly not violating any of Clark’s proposed principals: he correctly imagines the created domain of two cowboys playing poker, and he appreciates this by placing his reply in the created layer. In fact, the one breaking the joint pretence is Alan, by saying something about how Ken was not playing his role correctly. Ken’s reasons for not participating in the joint project of “making a movie” are irrelevant here; but this exchange does open up a possibility that yet another layer exists, which incorporate not only the two participants of the conversation, but also the entire body of people involved with creating the text of the script. As the entire domain of action is created by someone outside the joint project of conversation, this needs to be represented in the layer structure somewhere. So far, in the bottom layer the two participants jointly pretend that the events in the layer above take place, which is the domain of action created by the scriptwriters. As such, it is acceptable to assume that the writers are inserted somewhere hierarchically equal to the bottom layer, which I will call layer 1b. While the joint pretence is achieved in layer 1, the domain of action is provided by layer 1b.
Another layer can be added when one takes into account that the person providing the domain of action in the layer above is unreliable. He might be withholding his real opinion in favour of telling an interesting story: his motives could be contradictive to the ideas of the implied character that he has writing the story. As such, some theorists argue that every author must be distinguished from the “implied” author (Clark 363). This results in another layer having to be added. The layer structure for the above example should look something like this:
| Layer 3 | Two cowboys are playing poker | ||
| Layer 2 |
| An implied scriptwriter creates the domain of action in the above layer | |
| Layer 1 | Two actors jointly pretend that the events in layer 3 take place | Layer 1b | The scriptwriter pretends that the events in the above layer take place |
The two actors and the actual scriptwriter operate on the same base layer one. According to Clark, the scriptwriter’s pretence of creating an implied image of himself happens on layer two. The problem that rises is that there is nothing for the actors to do in that layer; the domain of action for them has not been provided yet. Also, since the actors have nothing to do with the implied scriptwriter and are merely executing the actions of acting out the script, they are dragged to a higher layer by a force in their original layer that has no connection to them. In this way, calling the second layer “Layer 2” is inappropriate, since not everyone in the bottom layer is also involved with it; the second layer kind of floats between the first and third layer. As such, it is more appropriate to have the scriptwriter create his implied version in a kind of “ghost layer” 1.5, between layer one and two, which means that the lack of need for the actors to create an implied version of themselves is dealt with. After all, actors do not need to do so; the script writer has provided his intentions already. The actors are only representing them.
Clark places the actors in the bottom layer, together with the audience and the rest of the Theatre Company, and “realize” layer two. The playwright only comes into view at that layer, where all the participants of the previous layer join him in a joint pretence that the events in layer three take place. The problem with this structure is that there is actually nothing to realize for the participants of the first layer; the only thing added is the playwright. While it’s possible that the participants could jointly pretend that the playwright was actually with them, this is an unlikely occurrence in actual theatre groups. Moreover, the adding of the playwright in a second layer does add nothing to the created domain of action in layer three, where the actors’ utterances are given meaning by adding a context. The same holds true for the audience that Clark incorporates in his layer structure (Clark 365). Because the playwright’s realization of an implied version of himself creates another layer, Clark also places the audience and everyone else involved with the play at the moment of performance, who have no reason for doing so.
In stories, something else to consider is the fact that characters quoting other characters also creates a new layer; after all, those characters open another joint project of joint pretence with other characters. Clark’s example is a character quoting a character quoting another character, and this is all told by a narrator that recalls past events, making four layers on top of the first created domain of action alone. Combining this with the two layers that are created because this example is from a book, the total amount of layers used in the specific passage is six.
A brilliant example of layering occurs in one of Shakespeare’s works: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. While the entire play is riddled with layers, there is one passage that stands out: the part where the group of carpenters perform their version of Pyramus and Thisbe. The layering shifts immensely, sometimes even mid-sentence. This is the first line of Tom Snout, who masterfully plays his part as wall:
“In this same interlude it doth befall
That I, one Snout by name, present a wall.
And such a wall, as I would have you think,
That had in it a crannied hole, or chink,
Through which the lovers, Pyramus and Thisbe,
Did whisper often very secretly.
This loam, this roughcast, and this stone doth show
That I am that same wall. The truth is so.
And this the cranny is, right and sinister,
Through which the fearful lovers are to whisper. “
Snout starts off by reassuring his audience that he is just an actor playing a wall, and like this still acts on the same layer as them. He also describes Pyramus and Thisbe, though, fictional characters in the layer above, and describes his cardboard costume as containing actual loam and stone. By violating the assumption that participants in a layer have no knowledge of the layers below, he creates a comedic effect which even Theseus as a fictional character himself recognizes. The same holds true for every other carpenter, each reassuring the audience that they are, in fact, not the character that they are representing. Their actions make the audience aware that the play will be executed terribly, so they start to joke around too. More accurately, they start using sarcasm and commend the play for its greatness. This action, as mentioned before, again creates another layer.
Moreover, there are different themes and hidden meanings in the play that Shakespeare may or may not have intended to convey; these are present throughout the entire play, even the sub-play of the carpenters. Therefore those too comprise an extra layer overlaying all of the others. This all happens in the actual play A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which is, in turn, told to us by a nameless narrator. Seeing as Shakespeare also created this narrator, the overall layer structure would look something like this:
| Layer 5 | The hidden themes and motifs in the play. | ||||
| Layer 4 | Pyramus, Thisbe and an actual wall exist physically, converse and live. | Layer 4B | Theseus and his court commend the carpenters’ play for its greatness. | ||
| Layer 3 | Theseus and his court watch the carpenters’ play and jointly pretend that the events in the above layer happen. | ||||
| Layer 2 | A narrator is demonstrating to an implied audience the events in layer 3 and creates the domain of action for that layer. The narrator, the other actors and the audience jointly pretend that the events in the above layer have happened. | ||||
| (Ghost) layer 1.5 | An implied Shakespeare creates the domain of action in the above layer | ||||
| Layer 1 | The actors and the audience jointly pretend that the events in layer two happen | Layer 1b | Actual Shakespeare pretends the events in layer 1.5 happen | ||
In layer three, the carpenters sporadically comment on the left layer above this one, unaware of layer 4B; Snout for instance demonstrates how he is playing a wall, and responds to Theseus asking him questions, thereby violating the principle that one is never aware of layers below his or her domain of action. With including the sub-play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare created an intrinsic structure of layers, using almost every trick in the book.
Knowledge of layers is important when one wants to grasp the point of certain conversations. Discerning them is important when facing sarcasm or jokes, and comes in handy when trying to unravel some playwright’s imaginations, because some of them stack layers intentionally to try and confuse the audience, having the characters sometimes violate the principles of layering to create comic effects. Clark’s neglect of the creation of an implied audience associated with the adding of an implied author into the layer structure can be solved by placing the implied author in a sublayer between the first and second. The adding of these ghost layers results in a clearer separation of the layers as well, and opposed to Clark’s original theory, does not incorporate the unforeseen consequence of having one part of a layer drag the rest of that layer with it while it has no reason to.
Works Consulted:
Clark, Herbert H. Using Language. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night's Dream. 1590-1596.
