Language of the drama

The third subdivision of the belles-lettres style is the language of plays. The first thing to be said about the parametres of this variety of belles-lettres is that, unlike poetry, which, except for ballads, in essence excludes direct speech and therefore dialogue, and unlike emotive prose, which is a combination of monologue (the author’s speech) and dialogue (the speech of the characters), the language of plays is entirely dialogue. The authors speech is almost entirely excluded except for the playwright’s remarks and stage directions, significant though they may be.

It follows then that the language of plays is always stylized, that is, it strives to retain the modus of literary English, unless the playwright has a particular aim which requires the use of non-literaryforms and expressions.

However even in this case a playwright will use such forms sparingly. Thus in Bernard Shaw’s play “Fanny’s First Play”, Dora, a street-girl, whose languages reveals her upbringing, her lack of educayion, her way of living, her tastes and aspirations, nevertheless uses comparatively few non-literary words. A bunk, asquipper are examples. Even these are explained with the help of some literary device. This is due to the stylization ogf language.

The stylization of colloquial languagesis one of the features of plays which at different stages in the history of English drama has manispested itself in differentways revealing, on the hand, the general trends of the literary language and, on hte other hand, the personal idiosyncrasies of hte writer.

The analysis of hte language texture of plays has shown that the most characteristic feature here is, to use the term of the theotry of information, redundancy of information caused by hte necessity to amplify the utterance. This is done for the sake of the audience. It has already been pointed out htat the spoken language tends to curtail utterances, sometimes simplifying the syntax to fragments of sentences without even showing the character of their interralation.

In plays the curtailment of utterances is not so extensive as it is in natural dialogue. Besides, in lively conversation, even when a prolonged utterance, a monologue, takes place, it is interspersed with interlocutor’s “signals of attention”, as they may be called, for example: yes, yeah, oh, That’s right, so, I see, yes I know, oh-oh, fine, Oh, my goodness, oh dear, well, well-well. Well, I never, and I like.

In plays these “signals of attention” are irrelevant and therefore done away with. The monologue in plays is never interrupted by any such exclamatory words on the part of the person to whom the speech is addressed. Further, in plays the character’ utterances are generally much longer than in ordinary conversation. Here is ashort example of dialogue between two characters from Bernard Shaw’s play “Heartbreak House”:

CAPTAIN SHOTOVER: Nurse, who is misguided and unfortunate young lady?

NURSE: She says Miss Hessy invited her, sir.

CAPTAIN SHOTOVER: And had she no friend, no parents to warm her against my daughter’s invitations? This is a pretty sort of house, by heavens! A young and attractive lady is invited here. Her luggage is left on these sters, for hours; and she herself is deposited in the poop and abandoned, tired and starving...”

This passage is typical in many ways.Fifst of all, the matter-of-fact diologue between the captain and the nurse gradually flows into a monologue in which elements of the spoken language and of emotive prose are merged. The monologue begins with conjunction 'and' which serves to link the preceding question to the monologue.

Control questions:

1. What is the notion of Rhetorical Questions?

2. What are Litotes?

3. What is Emotive prose?

4.What is the Language of Drama.

Literarure:

1. Л.Л. Нелюбин. Лингвостилистика современного английского языка. М., 2007г

2.Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. М., 1990
3. Кухаренко В.П. Семинары по стилистике. М., 1985
4. Galperin I. R. Stylistics. М., 1981
5. Кухаренко В.П. Интерпретация текста. М., 1984.
6. Разинкина Н.М, Функциональная стилистика. М., 1989.
7. Телия В.Н. Теория метафоры. М., Наука, 1990.

8. Ullman, Stephen, Words and their use. Frederich Muller, Ldn.1975 p.107

9. Verhaar, John W.M., Proceeding of the Ninth international congress of linguistics, The Hague, 1986, p.378

10. Foster, Brian, The changing English language, Penguine books, 1990,p.12

11.Barfield, Owen. Poetic diction. Lnd, 1979, 2 ed. P

Дата добавления: 2015-11-04