Nunnery Scene: A Pragmatic Analysis of Hamlet-Ophelia Encounter (original) (raw)
Related papers
Analysis of Conversational Implicatures in Camus' The Misunderstanding: A Pragmatic Exploration
Journal of English Language, Literature and Education, 2021
Implicatures perform an important role in creating humour or imparting different shades of meaning to a message. Similarly, flouting has become one of the common features in our daily communication. The focus of this paper is to study the cooperative principles in Camus' French play, The Misunderstanding (1943). This is a qualitative research. For this purpose, the data has been collected through the purposive sampling technique. In this study, the framework of Grice (1975) has been adopted, in which he described four maxims that should be obeyed by a speaker while making a conversation. The present study explores that in what ways the Gricean maxims have been flouted by the characters of the play. Findings reveal that there are 24 implicatures found in 16 utterances. Out of these 24 implicatures, the maxim of quantity has been flouted more than the others as it appears with the ratio of 9/24. Then comes the maxim of manner with the ratio of 8/24. The maxim of a relation comes on the third rank with the ratio of 6/24 and in the last comes the maxim of quality with the lowest ratio of 1/24. This study can be further expanded to find out the scalar implicatures and speech acts in the selected play.
The Pragmatics of Dialogical Asides in Shakespeare
Neither the Folio nor the various quartos of Shakespeare plays contain the stage direction “aside”, which was added to the texts starting from the first editors in the eighteenth century. Modern editions continue to signal this particular theatrical convention to readers, and scholars have defined various categories for it. Among these categories (monological, ad spectatores, and dialogical) this article examines the dialogical aside and the pragmatic strategies it involves, when dialogue becomes hidden, so to say, and particularly guarded (and wary), so as not to be discovered by other onstage bystanders. In this case the noun aside takes on its full meaning: due to a theatrical convention (valid especially in Elizabethan and Restoration drama, but absolutely rejected by the so-called fourth-wall theatre), a character in a multiparty talk chooses only one or more characters as their addressee, thus creating a dialogically privileged group and isolating the remaining bystanders. The article discusses some cases from The Tempest, Henry VI Part 3, and Antony and Cleopatra.
A Pragma-Stylistic Study of Implicature in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Twelfth Night
International Linguistics Research, 2021
Implicature is commonly defined as the dissimilarity between what is said and what is meant. The variance lies between the conspicuous meaning of written and spoken words and the meaning that lies beneath what is said. This study aims at analyzing and discussing Shakespeare's Hamlet and Twelfth Night in terms of generalized and particularized conversational and conventional implicature. The model used in the analysis is coined from a variety of pragmatic theories, implicature, Grice's maxims, irony, indirect speech acts, context, and hedges. It is hypothesized that the number of implicature cases in Twelfth Night is bigger than that in Hamlet, generation of implicatures by the characters in the two plays is highly determined by social factors, Hamlet and Cesario use implicature more than other characters, the most used implicature is the particularized one, the purpose of using implicatures differs in the plays, implicature is generated from flouting Grice's maxims and m...
The Conversational Turn in Shakespeare
Études Épistémè, 2018
English Français The OED distinguishes two principal senses of the word "conversation": "the action of living or having one's being in a place or among persons", and "interchange of words, thoughts". The first (indicating a kind of habitus, frequently with moral inflection) presumes more about a conversant than the second. Hence in Pericles Gower speaks of the hero as "the good in conversation". While there is some overlap, there is a significant gap in meaning and a kind of cultural struggle waged between the two. In the early modern period the first sense (deriving from Augustine and the Theatrum Mundi) might be thought of as dominant and the second emergent. Both were the focus of theoretical elaboration: the first principally by puritans (resulting in a register of "Christian conversation"), the second in two principle ways, by Steffano Guazzo and Montaigne. Guazzo's Civile Conversation (tr.1581, 1586) begins by conceding its profanity in Augustinian terms, but then proceeds to redefine the word in a secular, pragmatic and essentially modern sense. Montaigne's understanding of conversation is informed by Guazzo's but adds a sophisticated understanding of conversation as dialectic. What I propose is to sketch these various meanings of the word "conversation", speak to the "turn" from one end of its spectrum of meanings to the other, and then identify this spectrum of meanings in Shakespeare. That Shakespeare understands conversation in its pragmatic sense should come as no surprise, but that he should systematically understand it in the sense of a moral habitus while also exploring it in the sense of dialectic should surprise. L'Oxford English Dictionary distingue entre deux sens principaux du terme conversation. D'une part, la conversation est définie comme l'action de vivre avec ou de se tenir en un lieu, ou parmi d'autres personnes. De l'autre, elle correspond à un échange de paroles ou d'idées. La première définition, qui relève d'une sorte d'habitus, et qui est généralement coloré d'un sens moral, présuppose bien plus de la part de la personne qui converse. Ainsi, dans Pericles de Shakespeare, Gower parle du héros de la pièce comme du « good in conversation », voulant dire par là qu'il se The Conversational Turn in Shakespeare https://journals.openedition.org/episteme/2336 1 of 25 18/01/2019, 17:00 conduit ou qu'il « converse » honnêtement. Bien qu'ils se recoupent en partie, il subsiste néanmoins un écart, voire une forme de tension ou d'affrontement culturel, entre les deux acceptions de la conversation. Le premier sens, dérivé de saint Augustin et de la tradition du Theatrum Mundi, était le sens principal durant la première modernité ; le second sens, courant aujourd'hui, n'était alors que naissant. L'un et l'autre faisaient l'objet d'une réflexion théorique : les puritains s'était emparé du premier sens (décliné sous la forme plus précise de « conversation chrétienne »), le second était exploré notamment par Steffano Guazzo et Montaigne. Dans sa Civile Conversation (traduite en anglais en 1581 et 1586), Guazzo commence par reconnaître le caractère profane de sa conversation en des termes qui restent augustiniens, avant de redéfinir la notion en des termes pleinement laïques, et pragmatiques, c'est-à-dire modernes. La définition qu'en donne Montaigne reste informée par la pensée de Guazzo mais vient s'y ajouter l'idée sophistiquée d'une conversation qui serait dialectique. Le présent article se propose de développer, dans un premier temps, chacune de ces définitions de la conversation pour mieux mettre en lumière l'évolution de la notion et son tournant vers le sens moderne, avant de voir comment Shakespeare la décline. On ne sera pas étonné de voir que Shakespeare envisage la conversation en des termes assez neutres et pragmatiques, mais ce qui surprend davantage c'est qu'il l'envisage systématiquement, dans le même temps, comme un habitus et une dialectique.
A Pragmatic Reading of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
This article is an attempt to utilize pragmatics in the analysis of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet by using the "cooperative principle" and the "maxims" as developed by Paul Grice, and "speech acts theory" as clarified by J. L. Austin. The investigation has shown that by drawing upon such language analysis strategies, greater light can be shed on the meaning of the play, especially because it is one of Shakespeare's plays most amenable to pragmatic analysis. Furthermore, it has been found that this kind of analysis invites a special role for the reader to participate more creatively in the interpretation of the text besides providing an in-depth analysis to the play's scenes and speeches and highlighting certain aspects that may otherwise be overlooked. A pragmatic reading of the play enables us to understand the social function of language and consequently the relationships among the characters and their social status.
Deviations of Speech Acts in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot: A Study in Pragmatics
European Scientific Journal, 2015
Pragmatics interprets utterances in context, not in isolation and deals with all the sociological and psychological factors affecting the functioning of speech. The language of Waiting for Godot is conspicuous for deviations from the norms of formal conversation in context. A large number of utterances of the characters violate the principles of Speech Act Theory. The dialogues of the characters seem to convey nothing because of the hybrid utterances. The research paper aims to establish that these deviations from the normal speech patterns are instances of foregrounding which would yield a variety of meanings through Pragmatic study. Four extracts from the text of the play are selected for analysis under the theoretical framework of Austin and Searle's Theory of Speech Acts keeping in view their stylistic and thematic significance.
Pragmatic Analysis of the Dialogues in Arthur Miller’s Drama “The Crucible”
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics
Ever since its publication in 1953, The Crucible has attracted much attention for its tragic theme and vivid characterization. Reviews on The Crucible have been numerous and various in approaches. The present study mainly adopts pragmatic theories as its analytic approaches and analyzes the dialogues in The Crucible. It intends to find out how characters achieve their communicative purposes when they produce their utterances. Moreover, it is expected that this study may help shed some light on the pragmatic approach to the interpretation of drama. In this study, 16 fragments of dialogues are taken as the data for analysis. This study applies the Speech Acts Theory, the turn-control strategies, the Cooperative Principle, the Politeness Principle and the methods of Critical Discourse Analysis in data analysis. The turn-control strategies could help us learn how and why the character yields or claims a turn, and help us understand the communicative strategies of the participants. In a drama, dialogues between the characters are important ways of completing certain speech acts. The analysis of the dialogues may help us understand the real intentions of the characters. The present study carries implications for English teaching, the appreciation of drama and daily communication. Teaching turn-control strategies to students can help them communicate more successfully. The study of the theories and methods of Critical Discourse Analysis may improve students' critical language awareness. The application of pragmatic theories to the appreciation of drama contributes to the revelation of the real intentions of characters, and helps us understand how the playwright displays the story, portrays the characters and expresses his /her intentions through various language skills.
Comparing the Meaning Potential in Shakespeare and Manto through Speech Acts: A Discourse Pragmatic Study, 2021
This paper attempts to explain the application of speech act theory (John Searle, 1976) on the soliloquies expressed by Hamlet and Keshulal Singh. The descriptive focus of this study is to draw attention to the felicity conditions whether they are being fulfilled by the speakers while making an utterance or not. Content analysis based on speech act theory is used for this paper. It has been pointed out that declaratives are less while directives are more applicable on these soliloquies, with the help of analysis. Hamlet and Keshulal's inner self is being depicted through their speeches and it is analyzed that they are so much upset and are in the situation of to be or not to be that they do not know what should be their strategies, in taking their revenge. In actuality, they are trying to extinguish the storm which is bursting inside them through their soliloquies but by comparing the inner devastation of both characters. It is highlighted that Hamlet's soliloquies are more self-explanatory than that of Keshulal because Hamlet makes vows, questions, deplores, and challenges the circumstances more than the Keshulal.
Conversational Implicature in a Drama Script by Sid River
Jurnal Bahasa Lingua Scientia, 2019
The characters in a drama sometimes say implicitly so that what are said are different from what are meant. This study investigates conversational implicature in a drama script entitled "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Aquilla" by Sid River. The aim of the study was to find out what conversational maxims flouted to generate conversational implicature in the Sid River's drama script entitled "Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Aquilla" were. The research design employed in this study was a descriptive qualitative research using Grice's theory. The results of the study showed that from 35 excerpts, 11 excerpts belonged to observing the maxims, and the other 24 excerpts belonged to non-observance of the maxims, especially flouting the maxims. The number of flouting the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner respectively were 6, 20, 3, 3. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the conversational maxims flouted in this drama script are maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Moreover, flouting the maxim of Quality mostly occurs while the least occurance is flouting the maxims of Relation and Manner. In other words, the characters in this drama script often say untruthful utterances.
Antic Disposition: Hamlet in the Light of Cooperative Principle
The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2013
This paper is an attempt to analyse an extract from Shakespeare's ‚Hamlet‛ in terms of Grice's cooperative principle. The extract is selected from Act II/ii, ll.170-219, which consists of a conversation between Hamlet and Polonius. Discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use. A discourse analyst looks at language in its context and describes it in terms of its purpose and functions in human affairs. In other words the main focus of a discourse analyst is 'context, text and function' (Cutting, 2002:2). The cooperative principle enables the speaker and the listener to convey and interpret the implications of an apparently metaphorical utterance (Grice, 1975). Cutting (2002: 34-5) has discussed the four maxims of the cooperative principle as proposed by Grice (1975), which might be observed or flouted by participants according to their purpose. By flouting a maxim, the speaker conveys more than what is said through 'implicature'. The selected extract from Hamlet has been analysed using the principles of cooperation and implicature. Hamlets speech in the selected extract can be treated as an explicit example of the violation of the four maxims of the cooperative principle. It is concluded that Hamlet accomplishes his purpose of putting on an ‚antic disposition‛ by flouting the four maxims of the cooperative principle.