Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
TABĂRĂ
54
Exploring ‘Otherness’ Through
Perlocutionary Speech Acts
A Posthumanist Case Study of Brave New World and Never Let
Me Go
Larisa-Ilaria Tabără, MA
(Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania)
ABSTRACT
Looking back on the afterlives of the doppelgänger motif in 20th/ 21st century novels, the present paper assesses
language in the context of dystopian, posthumanist diegetic worlds. Scholarship on posthumanist literature asserts that
the post/ transhumanist ideal of a superior human being is achieved within fiction through technological and scientific
progress. However, the analysis at hand proposes that language, especially perlocutionary speech acts (Austen 1926;
i.e., utterances that produce an effect), underpin this posthumanist goal in literary works. Consequently, a case study is
conducted on two novels, Brave New World (Aldous Huxley, 1932) and Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro, 2005), both
of which tackle themes of cloning, placed in posthumanist contexts. They are a case in point of literary appropriation:
in the two literary works, perlocutionary speech acts not only prove to carry out the posthumanist goal of enhancing
human beings but also enact social exclusion in the diegetic worlds. Most significantly, operating with ‘the Other’
theory, a closer look is taken at complex literary portrayals of identity, where both humans and clones can be ‘the
Other.’
KEYWORDS
Brave New World, Never Let Me Go, posthumanism, othering, perlocutionary speech acts, the Other.
LANGUAGE AS PERFORMANCE
When looking into how narrative discourses convey competing diegetic worlds invested with
meaningful posthumanist undertones, the self-reflexive nature of literary language, as showcased
in 20th/21st century English dystopian novels, is self-evident. The study at hand argues, through
the lens of literary history and narratology, that literary discourses hinge on appropriating
meanings and functions of perlocutionary speech acts. This perspective on language allows for a
better understanding of how the novels’ characters’ communicative acts steer towards a
posthumanist, narrative account of a dystopian society.
The present case study is centered on two posthumanist, dystopian novels, Brave New World
(Aldous Huxley 1932) and Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro 2005). Both novels tackle notions
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
55
of cloning and are told from the perspective of such replicant human beings: Bernard Marx and
Kathy H. respectively. Brave New World (1932) follows the story of Bernard, a clone that fails to
conform to societal norms. It stages the action in a dystopian future, where cloning has overtaken
natural reproduction. Masses of identical replicant beings are constantly produced in factories with
the help of technology, biologically engineered and conditioned to comply with the strict rules of
the World State in which they live. ‘Normal’ humans (i.e., people that come into being by natural
birth) are kept secluded in Reservations and looked down upon. John the Savage is one of them.
When he encounters the clone society, its flaws are exposed.
Never Let Me Go (2005) is set in an alternative, fictitious past and is narrated from the perspective
of Kathy H., who reminisces about her childhood spent at Hailsham—a boarding school for
clones—as well as her later life up to when she turns thirty-one. Here, clones are conceived as
doppelgängers whose sole purpose in society is to grow up healthy, so that when reaching
maturity, they can start donating their organs to humans in need.
The two novels are of interest given their intricate use of language in constructing and literary
rendering posthumanist, dystopian fictional worlds that focus on themes of cloning. Arguably, the
clones’ narrative discourses center around themes of attempts to replicate humankind while,
simultaneously, building on the language readers themselves use. The aim of this study, informed
by theories of literary posthumanism is to assess through discourse analysis why and how the
language actualized in literary discourses comes to underpin and enforce a specific ideology in
posthumanist, dystopian fiction. To do so, the Speech Acts theory is employed, as it points to
language’s ‘ability […] to do other things than describe reality’ (Green 2021, np.), with a special
focus on perlocutionary linguistic acts.
The Speech Acts theory, first postulated by J. L. Austen (1962), essentially claims that ‘the action
performed when an utterance is produced can be analyzed on three different levels’ (Cutting 2002,
16). These levels are correlated to three types of speech acts; the locutionary act, ‘the act of saying
so NUMmething’; the illocutionary act, ‘the function of the words’ and their specific intended
purpose (ibid); the perlocutionary act, ‘a speech act which does not merely describe something
but enacts it’ (Cuddon 2013, 525). It is from the perspective of appropriating this last speech act
in literary discourses that we analyze the narrative discourse of the two novels.
The metafictional undertones of the novels’ literary language (as the ‘form of language used in
literary writing,’ Awa 2019, 44) highlight language-use as a shaping force in Brave New World
and Never Let Me Go. Discursive practice serves to advance a posthumanist agenda, enforcing the
TABĂRĂ
56
beyond-human objective of creating a superior humanoid being with the help of biotechnological
and scientific progress:
We imagine posthumans as humans made superhumanly intelligent or resilient
by future advances in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology
and cognitive science. Many argue that these enhanced people might live better
lives…it is assumed that our technological successor will be an
upgraded…version of us: Human 2.0. (Roden 2015, i)
As it turns out, language plays a salient role in this process. In particular, the perlocutionary speech
acts, represented as being performed by the characters, are relevant in this respect as they ‘produce
an effect, intended or not, achieved in an addressee by a speaker’s utterance’ (Glossary of
Linguistic Terms 2015, np.). Perlocutionary acts imply that ‘words are used not only to present
information but also to carry out actions’ (Nordquist 2013, np.). Placed in a posthumanist context,
this proves to be significant.
As such, this study also employs a posthumanist theoretical framework, which ‘designates a series
of breaks with foundational assumptions of modern Western culture’ (Bolter 2016, 1).
Specifically, posthumanism resides in denying humanist anthropocentrism and Cartesian dualism.
It provides a new perspective on the relationship between humans and the world they live in, and
it highlights ‘the ambivalent condition of the contemporary human beings, whose bodies are open
to forms of technological modification and intervention’ (Bolter 2016, 2). Thus, the posthuman
being, as ‘a physical entity that is created because of specific techno-scientific developments’
(Švec 2020, 2), is the focus of attention in this paper. However, my argument is that the
posthumanist goal of a superior humanoid, as represented in literature, is not only the result of
technological and biological development but also of discourse. If research shows that posthuman
beings are ‘technologically wrought’ (Roden 2015, 4), this study adds to existing scholarship a
linguistic inquiry to such nonhuman characters, accounting for the salient role of language—
perlocutionary (used synonymously with ‘performative’) speech acts in particular—in bringing
about and, afterwards, perpetuating, their existence. Notably, it is not only due to technological
and scientific progress that a superior humanoid can be created. Most importantly, it is through
language, which is performative in nature, that such a being can be achieved, as revealed by
fictional posthumanist discourses.
In short, I take posthumanism to account for the fast-paced power dynamics between humans,
their enhanced doubles, and futuristic technologies. However, for the purpose of my study, it is
not sufficient to merely provide a discourse analysis of the two novels. Therefore, posthumanism
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
57
is connected to theories of ‘the Other’ (Said 1979, De Beauvoir 1949), which results in a more
extensive conceptual framework that can better account for the discriminatory power dynamics
within Brave New World and Never Let Me Go. This is so because the phenomenon of ‘Othering’
implies ‘the simultaneous construction of the self or in-group and the other or out-group in mutual
and unequal opposition through identification of some desirable characteristic that the self/in-
group has and the other/out-group lacks [and] sets up a superior self/in-group in contrast to an
inferior other/out-group’ (Brons 2015, 70). Fundamentally, it sets up a ‘we’ versus ‘them’
dichotomy where those perceived as not belonging are marginalized and discriminated against.
Examining how perlocutionary speech acts shape diegetic worlds is productive because it ties
together the narrative discourses in fictional posthumanist works with a focus on themes of
belonging and exclusion, humanity, and cloning. Understanding the effects of perlocutionary
speech acts in Brave New World and Never Let Me Go gives new insights into the creative force
of literary rendering the challenging human–posthuman relationship across fiction.
PERFORMING ‘THE OTHER’
Simply put, perlocutionary speech acts are performative in that they elicit a certain response on
the hearer’s part. As Cuddon puts it, a perlocution is an utterance ‘which possesses some degree
of inherent agency’ (2013, 525). Both texts come back to the issue of representing spoken
language in strategic contexts. In Brave New World, most perlocutionary acts are to be identified
in the repetitive use of words while the characters are asleep; persuasive utterances which are
designed to promote consumerism and hedonism among the clones. In Never Let Me Go, the most
persuasive communicative acts belong to the guardians surrounding the clones during their early
childhood. In both novels, perlocutionary speech acts aim at enforcing posthumanist goals for
characters and, possibly, readers, who are exposed to metatextual considerations on language and
come to question language use in their own social contexts.
In Never Let Me Go, the posthumanist ideal of the beyond-human is a physically and intellectually
greater being: ‘What he wanted was to offer people the possibility of having children with
enhanced characteristics. Superior intelligence, superior athleticism, that sort of thing’ (2005,
258). This goal is promoted by the performative utterances of the guardians and caregivers. They
urge and encourage clones to comply with their social role i.e., to give over their organs to normal
human beings, to prolong the latter’s lifespan. For instance, at Hailsham, the young students are
reminded by their teachers:
TABĂRĂ
58
Your lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old,
before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs. That’s
what each of you was created to do. […] You were brought into this world for a
purpose, and your futures, all of them, have been decided. (2005, 80)
The plot’s unfolding reveals that the clones’ identity is formed from an early age, by the time they
reach maturity. All they are capable of is to perform what they were told repeatedly. From this
perspective, the two texts mirror each other: characters are told over and over by their superiors
what they should do, to the point where there is no resistance to comply with desired behaviors.
However, the novels differ in that the persuasive utterances have various levels of concealment.
On the one hand, in Brave New World, the leaders in charge of the propaganda are very much
open in their endeavors. They explicitly expose the characters to performative utterances with
various implications to preserve the social stability of the clone society and to enforce the
posthumanist goal of creating and preserving superior human beings. For example, keeping the
clones ignorant is enacted by the Director of Hatcheries’ attempts at reinforcing the idea that sleep
conditioning or education has nothing to do with logic and reason: ‘Moral education, which ought
never, in any circumstances, to be rational’ or ‘For that [inculcating a more complex course of
behavior] there must be words, but words without reason. In brief, hypnopedia. “The greatest
moralizing and socializing force of all time”’ (1932, 21, 23). Nonetheless, the Director’s words
point to an inconsistency, in that words without reason are unfeasible when it comes to instilling
a proper moral sense in the characters. Effectively, the clones are openly manipulated into blissful
ignorance.
On the other hand, in Never Let Me Go, the perlocutionary speech acts are much more subtle, as
the following excerpt shows:
Tommy thought it possible the guardians had, throughout all our years at
Hailsham, timed very carefully and deliberately everything they told us, so that
we were always just too young to understand properly the latest piece of
information. But of course we’d take it in at some level, so that before long all
this stuff was there in our heads without us ever having examined it properly.
(2005, 81)
What Kathy points out here is that all the doppelgängers, much like herself, had long accepted
their fate without question because of gradual persuasion. Little by little, they were educated on
their role in the community which, by adulthood, added up to a social identity submissively
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
59
assumed. The effects of the performative utterances are just as visible as in the other text, only
that, here, the perlocutionary speech acts are more veiled in how the clones’ guardians rarely ever
inform them about the full reality of their existence. When they do, they resort to euphemisms to
tone down harsh truths. For example, the word ‘donating’ is used to describe the process of
obligatorily harvesting the clones’ organs; the guardians who surveil the clones are named
‘carers;’ ‘completion’ marks the end of a clone’s life.
The way in which perlocutionary linguistic acts are devised and embedded in the novels’ plot
coupled with the self-reflexive under/overtones of the narrative discourse impacts the readers as
well. The effects of the literary language are not limited to the diegetic worlds of the novels but
transcend their limits and give rise to questions regarding the discursive practices of readers
themselves. Consequently, in the extradiegetic world, clone narratives are likely subjected to
critical observation because of the alarms signaled by the inconsistencies and dangers portrayed
in dystopian works of fiction centered around the posthumanist motif of cloning.
Perlocutions and Diegetic Social Exclusion
Another consideration is how perlocutionary speech acts, as represented in the two novels, aim at
enforcing distinctions in the diegetic worlds between the characters’ social classes. Explicitly,
through instances of persuasive language, characters are primarily delineated into opposing
categories: humans and non-humans (i.e., clones). From a posthumanist perspective, this
distinction is of utmost importance since it allows readers to delve into considerations about power
structures and distribution. The social hierarchy of heterogeneous futuristic worlds is made up of
humans and other perceived superior beings, enhanced through technological progress.
The analysis of perlocutionary speech acts is corroborated with the theory of the ‘Other,’ borrowed
from postcolonial literary studies. In literature (as well as in the social reality of readers) the ‘we’
vs. ‘them’ dichotomy suggests that ‘the Other is an individual who is perceived by the group as
not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way’ (Melani 2009, np.). This study
conveys a better understanding of othering as a literary-driven process, viewed contrastively in
the two novels, with a special focus on how the characters’ perlocutionary speech acts carry out
and enforce discriminatory differences between social classes.
With respect to ‘othering,’ this is the ‘practice of judging all who are different, [which] divides
the world between “us” (the “civilized”) and “them” (the “others,” the “savages”)’ (Tyson 401,
cited in Vichiensing 2017, 126). Additionally, ‘the concept of othering means a mental distance
is created between “us” and “them”’ (ibid, 127). Character delineation, meant to alienate or
TABĂRĂ
60
marginalize one character or another—coupled with the findings of pragmatics and discourse
analysis on perlocutionary speech acts —directs us toward the conclusion that literary discourses
put into practice social exclusion in both diegetic worlds. In short, the human–clone relationship
in Brave New World and Never Let Me Go is correlated to that of the oppressor–oppressed, not
necessarily in this respective order. The following part of the analysis sheds light on the power
dynamics of the social groups found within the diegetic worlds and particularly on how language
(specifically, perlocutionary acts) leads to the conflation of the characters’ identity and self-
perception with either the discriminated or the discriminator.
The Human ‘Other’
In Brave New World (1932), we can observe that clones are the exploiter: they form the dominant
social class, which starkly differs from that of the ‘normal’ humans (born naturally with biological
parents). Ordinary human beings are placed in special locations, called ‘Reservations’ and exist
as a remembrance of the old world that preceded the great technological progress which ensued
from Fordism.
Clones have organized themselves, forming a self-sustainable society made up of five distinct
castes governed by the motto ‘Community. Identity. Stability.’ Their only interaction with humans
is when they go on visits or vacations to the Reservations. Otherwise, clones regard humans with
disgust and even fear, because of their primitivity and odd, unsanitary lifestyle. For instance, when
Lenina, a female clone (Bernard’s girlfriend for a short period of time), goes to a Reservation for
the first time, she expresses her profound dislike and disapproval of the human community:
‘Queer,’ said Lenina. ‘Very queer.’ It was her ordinary word of condemnation. ‘I
don't like it. And I don't like that man’ She pointed to the Indian guide who had
been appointed to take them up to the pueblo. Her feeling was evidently
reciprocated; the very back of the man, as he walked along before them, was hostile,
sullenly contemptuous. (1932, 92)
Her reaction when in contact with humans, as well as that of the other replicant beings, is not
random. It is the effect of years of sleep teaching and, linguistically speaking, of perlocutionary
speech acts that instilled and enacted a discriminatory attitude towards humans.
Regarding the latter aspect, one can observe how the clone’s discourse regarding humans is
steeped in revulsion. This can be inferred from a speech at the beginning of the novel that the
Resident Controller for Western Europe, Mustapha Mond, gives to students visiting the
Hatcheries—factories where clones are engineered. The scene is relevant as it points to the power
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
61
of language to enforce social exclusion between non-humans and humans in the diegetic world.
Mustapha Mond’s talk with the students uncovers the clones’ perspective on humans: ‘mother’ is
considered a ‘smutty word,’ ‘living with one’s family’ is unimaginable, and ‘homes’ are ‘squalid,’
‘rabbit holes, middens, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotions’ (1932,
31).
The Clone ‘Other’
Conversely, in Never Let Me Go, clones are the discriminated ‘Other.’ The unfolding plot suggests
that, even if human characters fear clones, they accept their presence due to their usefulness when
it comes to organ transplantation. Kathy remembers one scene which took place at Hailsham when
she and her friends tried to test if one of the human adults feared them. She admits:
We all felt it; it was like we’d walked from the sun right into chilly shade. Ruth
had been right: Madame was afraid of us. But she was afraid of us in the same
way someone might be afraid of spiders. We hadn’t been ready for that. It had
never occurred to us to wonder how we would feel, being seen like that, being
the spiders. (2005, 35, italics in original)
The fragment perfectly captures the perceived ‘mental distance’ (Vichiensing 2017, 127) that
exists in the diegetic world between clones and humans – the emphasized ‘we’ renders the stark
opposition between the two groups. On the one hand, humans, as creators and superior forces, and
on the other hand, clones, as created and only a means to an end.
Even more, Kathy and all the other clones are always aware of the difference in status relative to
that of the ‘normal’ humans. Looking back, the narrator ponders on her identity and self-
perception:
So you’re waiting, even if you don’t quite know it, waiting for the moment when
you realize that you really are different to them; that there are people out there,
like Madame, who don’t hate you or wish you any harm, but who nevertheless
shudder at the very thought of you–of how you were brought into this world and
why–and who dread the idea of your hand brushing against theirs. (2005, 36,
italics mine)
Of course, the othering process here, as well as in Brave New World, is founded on perlocutionary
speech acts. From a pragmatic perspective, the guardians’ discourses on the clones’ status (even
TABĂRĂ
62
if covert) shapes their identity and makes them compliant with their role in society. Miss Emily,
the head guardian at Hailsham, discloses to Kathy and Tommy at the end of the novel:
Very well, sometimes that meant we kept things from you, lied to you. Yes, in
many ways we fooled you. I suppose you could even call it that. But we sheltered
you during those years, and we gave you your childhoods. […] You wouldn’t
be who you are today if we’d not protected you. (2005, 263)
Inter/ Intra-Caste ‘Othering’
What is more, linguistically speaking, the characters’ performative utterances enact social
exclusion not only between humans and non-humans but also among clones. This is the case of
Brave New World, where there is further inter and intra-caste discrimination based on
perlocutionary speech acts. Some examples are included in the words repeated to clones during
sleep-teaching: ‘Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse’
(1932, 22), or ‘We are much better than the Gammas and Deltas’ (ibid).
As the Director of the Hatcheries pointed out, these utterances are repeated until entrenched in the
clones’ minds and guide their enactment of desired behaviors:
Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions
is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too–all his
life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides–made up of these
suggestions. (1932, 23, italics mine)
Regarding the intra-caste discrimination, it can be noticed that Bernard Marx, though an Alpha, is
looked down on by his cast mates because he is physically different – an abnormality for the all-
alike clones. His discrimination is once again rooted in perlocutionary speech acts, as can be
inferred from the following excerpt:
Hence the laughter of the women to whom he made proposals, the practical
joking of his equals among the men. The mockery made him feel an outsider;
and feeling an outsider he behaved like one, which increased the prejudice
against him and intensified the contempt and hostility aroused by his physical
defects. Which in turn increased his sense of being alien and alone. (1932, 55-
56)
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
63
The narrative voice captures exactly the essence of Bernard’s marginalization: the jokes of his
peers and their gossips made him acutely aware of his unconformity. Consequently, the
performative utterances of the other clones transform Bernard into an isolated, very self-aware
individual who feels the need to compensate for his physical flaws. He is made insecure by others’
unflattering commentaries, which further determine him to act brutally toward other clones
belonging to inferior castes.
In this regard, the theme of belonging and exclusion is shaped by recriminative language-use,
which is intensified by a defamiliarizing language in Brave New World and toned down by reliance
on euphemisms in Never Let Me Go. Hence, performative language promotes posthumanist goals
and enforces a strict distinction between the human and non-human characters in both novels.
CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES
However, it cannot be overlooked that perlocutionary speech acts can fall short of their intended
effects, i.e., ensuring submission and blissful ignorance. Characters like Bernard Marx show that
performative utterances used in posthumanist contexts are not infallible. Through his actions,
Bernard proves that he can challenge the existing societal rules of the diegetic world. Although a
clone himself, conditioned in a similar manner to all his fellows, the protagonist is endowed with
the power to subvert norms and overthrow social conformity.
Bernard’s actions and behavior point to a failure of the perlocutionary speech acts uttered during
night-time and by the other characters. He seems immune to the propaganda conducted all around
him and questions the surrounding realities. When Lenina claims that she is happy, Bernard
enquires if she ever envisioned happiness differently than the way society dictates:
‘Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?’ ‘I don’t know what you mean. I am
free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ He
laughed, ‘Yes, “Everybody’s happy nowadays.” We begin giving the children
that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way,
Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.’ (1932,
79)
This exchange shows the fact that Bernard sees the world through a different lens than that of his
equals. Over him, language has a diminished impact, because he himself has a different view on
language: he questions mainstream understandings of certain words: ‘happy in some other
way…not in everybody else’s way’ (ibid, emphasis mine). Not to mention John the Savage, a
TABĂRĂ
64
normal human being, who clearly sees and signals the incongruences in the clones’ society. In a
scene where all clones queue to get their soma (a drug meant to numb the clones’ feelings), John
shouts: ‘Listen, I beg of you. […] Don’t take that horrible stuff. It’s poison, it’s poison. […] Poison
to soul as well as body’ (1932, 185). Here, his own warnings become ineffective perlocutionary
acts, as the other clones ignore his cries on the basis of sleep-teaching which is repeated over and
over to them that ‘A gramme [of soma] is better than a damn’ (1932, 47) or ‘“One cubic centimeter
cures ten gloomy sentiments,” said the Assistant Predestinator citing a piece of homely
hypnopædic wisdom’ (1932, 46).
Therefore, not all performative utterances prove impactful in the clones’ fictitious world.
Essentially, literary discourses fail at times to uphold posthumanist goals and to shape the
doppelgängers’ self-identification accordingly to preserve the status quo of the diegetic
posthumanist society.
CONCLUSIONS
The diegetic worlds of Brave New World and Never Let Me Go depict alternative posthumanist,
dystopian backdrops against which themes and motifs centered on cloning and human
enhancement have long been developed. Literary discourses shape and uphold posthumanist
worlds that challenge notions of human ability and power relationships between humans and
beyond-humans.
To carry out my textual analysis, I resorted to theories of literary posthumanism, which shed light
on the relationship between humans and posthumans – or non-humans, clones, and beings
enhanced with the help of scientific-technological progress. I also employed theories of linguistics,
particularly the Speech Acts theory (Austen 1962), to account for the novels’ literary language.
Moreover, my study of the narrative power dynamics of these two novels was conducted by
making use of the theory of ‘the Other,’ first advanced by postcolonial literary studies (Said 1979).
On the one hand, in Brave New World, there are metafictional overtones and considerations on
and about language which point to the conclusion that the clones’ narrative discourse enforces an
all-encompassing worldview that is mainly based on hedonism, consumerism, and drug
consumption. On the other hand, in Never Let Me Go, the language’s self-reflexive nature is more
subtle: the metafictional considerations on language are covert and can be inferred throughout the
plot’s unfolding, by means of the characters’ social interactions and through the use of
euphemisms. Regardless of the dissimilarities, it is through characters’ performative utterances
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
65
and through the perlocutionary discourses they are constantly exposed to that their social
submission is ensured, which ultimately grants success to posthumanist ways of existence.
Finally, the analysis showed that the narrative discourses of the novels enact, through
perlocutionary speech acts, a ‘mental distance’ (Vichiensing 2017: 127) between characters
belonging to different social classes. As such, othering manifests itself in both novels: in the first
one, clones form the privileged social class, they are the ‘exploiter;’ while in the second novel, the
replicant beings are the discriminated, ostracized ‘other,’ i.e., the ‘exploited.’ Much of their
discourse is steeped in a recrimination rhetoric, were assigning blame acts as an instance of
perlocutionary utterance that ultimately achieves social marginalization in the fictional worlds.
Conclusively, in line with the discourse analysis of the two novels, evidence points towards the
idea that language has an undeniable shaping force on behavior and action (Anikin 2023,
Shashkevich 2019). In contemporary times, when one pays a great deal of attention to their word
selection and obliges to the rules of political correctness (Monashnenko, Amelina, and Shynkaruk
2021), further studies could be conducted on posthumanist literature and particularly themes of
cloning from an explicitly ethical and linguistic standpoint. If (defamiliarized and euphemistic)
language transforms characters’ worldview, making them tolerate if not embrace cloning, could it
possibly be that its effects might outreach the fictional world of the novel and impact the readers’
ethical viewpoints as well? Arguably, reading changes who we are; the vicarious experience it
provides helps readers ‘acquire dispositions to act and feel in certain ways’ (Culler 1997, 112).
Consequently, a study centered on reader response could be of interest to (socio)linguists and
literary critics alike, where a closer look is taken at the readers’ interpretation and response to
language manipulation, with a particular focus on themes of cloning—a contentious topical issue
(Sandler, Moses, and Wisely 2021, Smith 2024, Yung et al. 2023).
REFERENCES
Anikin, Sergei. 2023. “The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our Reality.” Medium,
https://medium.com/@sergeianikin/the-power-of-language-how-words-shape-our-
reality-59d8c7ac0f3b.
Awa, Jacinta Onyekachi. 2019. “Literary Language. A Unique Experimentation.” International
Journal of Arts and Humanities, 8 (4): 44. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijah.v8i4.4.
Badmington, Neil. 2003. “Theorising Posthumanism”. Cultural Critique, 53: 11-27. US:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bolter, Jay. 2016. “Posthumanism”. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
and Philosophy, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brons, Lajos. 2015. “Othering. An Analysis.” Transcience, a Journal of Global Studies, 6 (1):
69-90. https://philarchive.org/rec/BROOAA-4.
TABĂRĂ
66
Cuddon, John Anthony. 2013. A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 4th ed. UK:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Culler, Jonathan. 1997. “Identity, Identification, and the Subject” Literary Theory: A Very Short
Introduction, 108–19. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse: A resource book for students. USA: Routledge.
Green, Mitchel. 2021. “Speech Acts”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/speech-acts/.
Hayles, Katherine. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature,
and Informatics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hreceniuc (Cîrdei), Evelina-Iuliana. 2019. “An Analysis of the Concept of Otherness”. Reading
Ventures, 101-113. Suceava. Editura Universității „Ștefan cel Mare.”
Huxley, Aldous. 1932. Brave New World. UK: Vintage.
Ishiguro, Kazuo. 2005. Never Let Me Go. UK: Faber & Faber Limited.
Melani, Lilia. 2009. The Other in Literature.
https://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/other.html.
Mendz, George. & Cook, Michael. 2021. “Posthumanism: Creation of a ‘New Man’ through
Technological Innovation”. The New Bioethics. 27(3): 197-218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.1953266.
Monashnenko, Anna, Svitlana Amelina, and Vasyl Shynkaruk. 2021. “The Phenomenon of
Political Correctness in Modern English”. Advances in Social Science, Education and
Humanities Research. 557: 149-157 https://www.atlantis-
press.com/article/125957090.pdf.
Nordquist, Richard. 2013. “Speech-Act Theory: Definition and Examples”. ThoughtCo Online.
https://www.thoughtco.com/speech-act-theory-1691989.
“Perlocutionary Act.” 2015. Glossary of Linguistic Terms.
https://glossary.sil.org/term/perlocutionary-act.
Roden, David. 2015. Posthuman Life. Philosophy at the Edge of the Human. New York:
Routledge.
Sandler, Ronald, Lisa Moses, and Samantha Wisely. 2021. “An Ethical Analysis of Cloning for
Genetic Rescue: Case Study of the Black-Footed Ferret.” Biological Conservation. 257
(May): 109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109118.
Shashkevich, Alex. 2019. “The Power of Language: How Words Shape People, Culture”.
news.stanford.edu. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/08/the-power-of-language-
how-words-shape-people-culture.
Smith, Caleb. 2024. “Bioethics of Human Cloning: Are We Playing God?” NEXUS: The Liberty
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 1 (1): Article 2.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/nexus/vol1/iss1/2.
Švec, Lea. 2020. Posthumanism in Modern Fiction. Analyzing the Posthuman in Ishiguro’s Never
Let Me Go, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Undergraduate
Thesis. University of Zadar. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:162:368802.
Svensk, Lina. 2009. Cloning as a Reflection of the Outlook on Society and Mankind: A
Comparison Between the Fictional Dystopias in Aldous Huxleyʼs Brave New World and
Kazuo Ishiguroʼs Never Let Me Go. Student Paper. Lund University.
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1649132.
JUNCTIONS VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2 (2024)
67
van Dijck, José. 1999. “Cloning Humans, Cloning Literature: Genetics and the Imagination
Deficit”. New Genetics and Society, 18(1): 9–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14636779908656887.
Vichiensing, Matava. 2017. “The Othering in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go”. Advances in
Language and Literary Studies. Vol 8(4): 126-135.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.4p.126.
Yung, Patrick, Ning F Ma, Ig-Jae Kim, and Dongwook Yoon. 2023. “Speculating on Risks of AI
Clones to Selfhood and Relationships: Doppelganger-Phobia, Identity Fragmentation,
and Living Memories.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7
(CSCW1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579524.