In this essay I will be focusing on the stylistic analysis of the conversation which is taken from Monty Phyton and the Holy Grain by Graham Chapman et al. I will begin by expressing what my general impressions are of this text. King Arthur seems like a very pleasant and well mannered person whereas, the French man who's in a conversation with him is a completely opposite individual. He comes across as very rude and insulting. King Arthur warns the Frenchman of his actions but he doesn’t seem to understand and continues with his silly remarks. The Frenchman doesn’t want the English men to help in a quest as they are French themselves; so they attempt to mislead the king and his men. However, King Arthur refuses to this and wants to enter the castle to talk to Guy de Loimbard.
Turn taking is when the speakers are aware of when to speak next. They are able to follow the rules of turn taking which has been carried out in most of the conversations in everyday life. Turn taking enables the speech to be a continuous one and this is shown in Text 3. King Arthur and the Frenchman are able to follow the rule of turn taking and there individual ideas come across in the play very clearly without any overlapping and interruptions. Heritage (1984) said that one person at a time can talk and when one person has the floor, the other person listens and when he speaks then the other listens. This shows they are both aware that turn taking rules constitutes to social importance. I noticed that the Frenchman had more turns to talk than Arthur which is 13 times and he had the most number of words which calculates to 153. How ever, Arthur had 11 turns and spoke 129 words in the conversation. Stylistics have said that the one who talks more in a conv...
... middle of paper ...
...r. There are a few examples of this in the play. One of them is when Arthur says “are you sure”, he is in doubt and thinks that the Frenchman might be lying to him. The Frenchman can assume that he is doubted on and that’s why Arthur is asking him if he is sure about what he saying. Another example is when Galahad says “what are you doing in England”?. This gives a different meaning to what it implies, Galahad is trying to say that he shouldn’t be in England.
Finally, I have come to a conclusion with the stylistic analysis of this play. I have looked at how characters are able to gain topic control and how turn taking associates to politeness. I have included many theories including Grice and his maxims and Brown and Levinson face threatening theory to support my analysis. I have also looked at speech acts which show a relationship between the charaters.
shall firstly do a summery of the play and give a basic image of what
• The comedic affect of the scene where Arthur and his men are kept away from the castle by farm animal warfare is a parody to when King Uther Pendragon attacked the Duke of Cornwall’s castle and was kept off with fire, soldiers and other one would expect in combat.
accept his terms. He mocks Arthur, who is silent, and before the king can accept,
In the opening scene Sir Gawain faces his first trial when the Green Knight proposes his “Christmas game.” The room falls silent for “If he astonished them at first, stiller were then/ All that household in hall, the high and low;” (lines 301-302). The Green Knight begins to mock the court; and then boldly, King Arthur accepts h...
civility. The court of King Arthur as described in the tale of Lanval by Marie de France shows to
Langston Hughes and Richard Wright both evolved from the same literary period. Langston Hughes was born in Joplin, Missouri. Richard Wright was born in Roxie, Mississippi. Both authors wrote literatures in the 1930s. They had dissimilar writing styles, which were portrayed from their collected works; however, there were also similarities between the two authors. Hughes was a poet, novelist, and a playwright. During the 1930s, Hughes, as a popular writer connected with the Harlem Renaissances, became a public figure, working as a journalist, lecturing, and bringing out anthologies of black writing. Wright, on the other hand, worked for the Writers’ Project and did innumerable freelance journalisms. In 1935, he started to write fictions, which was strongly influenced by the literary Naturalism during that era. Richard Wright was an artist of complexity and subtlety. Hughes and Wright were both African American writers at that time. Their themes and writing styles leans towards racism, discrimination and equality. We see some of these ideas depicted in “Red Headed Baby” by Langston Hughes and “The Man Who Almost a Man” by Richard Wright. Social political issues were also portrayed, along with similarities in their writing language. Those themes were the main thoughts talked and written about during that era.
It shouldn't be forgotten that in the body of the play those who are masters of a language of extraordinary wit and polish - language that seems to guarantee rationality and good judgement - get things almost completely wrong. The resolution of the play comes via the agency of the people whose discourse is an assault on language, who are dismissed - by Leonato - as 'tedious' when they should be patiently listened to. But, as Borachio says 'what your wisdoms could not discover, these shallow fools have brought to light' (V.1.221-222). And even more disturbing, that resolution comes by mere accident: by the chance overhearing of a conversation.
William Shakespeare’s dramatic and poetic techniques and his use of hyperbole are used to describe the characters emotions and weaknesses. The use of dramatic irony is used to create personal conflict. This is done throughout the play to describe the characters concerns and their situations.
Although King Arthur is one of the most well-known figures in the world, his true identity remains a mystery. Attempts to identify the historical Arthur have been unsuccessful, since he is largely a product of fiction. Most historians, though, agree that the real Arthur was probably a battle leader of the Britons against the Anglo-Saxons in the sixthth century. In literature, King Arthur's character is unique and ever changing, taking on a different face in every work. There is never a clearly definitive picture that identifies Arthur's character. It is therefore necessary to look at a few different sources to get better insight into the character of Arthur, the once and future king.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
The archetypal tragedy of two star-crossed lovers, separated by familial hate, is a recurring theme, which never fails to capture the minds of the audience. It is only at great cost, through the death of the central characters that these feuding families finally find peace. This is an intriguing idea, one antithetical. I have chosen to analyze both Shakespeare 's Romeo and Juliet and Laurent 's West Side Story. The purpose of this essay is showing how the spoken language is utilized in these different plays to meet differing objectives. The chosen scenes to further aid comparison and contrast are the balcony scenes.
Equivocation is the intention to mislead, and misleading people is like a theme in the play Macbeth. It is because of the witches, who are technically protagonists, that Macbeth got the idea that he will become king of Scotland. “All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter.”(Shakespeare.1.2.48). The witches initiate the murder of Duncan in Macbeth’s mind, and then he wrote a letter to Lady Macbeth, who plays with his manhood so that he can carry out the murder. “Art thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valour.” (Shakespeare.1.7.39-40). Another example of equivocation is when Macbeth asks the witches for the three apparitions of who stands in his way of being king safely, “Macbeth, Macbeth, Macbeth. Beware Macduff, beware the Thane of Fife. Dismiss me Enough.” (Shakespeare.4.1.70-71) The other two apparitions told Macbeth not to be afraid until a man who is not born of woman approaches him and he shouldn’t be afraid until Birnam Wood uproots itself and moves towards high Dunsinane Hill. These three apparitions misleads Macbeth into believing that he is safe because technically every man is born of a woman and Birnam Wood moving to High Dunsinane Hill is not possible. Equivocation plays very important roles in Macbeth and The Crucible.
...ed the lives of simple men (Jordan 71). This was all a realm of the imagination conceived my great authors during the Middle Ages and was translated into medieval garb (Evans 74). Perhaps very few people realize what a very great realm of the imagination the legends of King Arthur are, and how vast a literature it has become. During the Middle Ages, this was the great theme of creative writing in poetry and prose (Evans 137). Not only in England, but preeminently in France and Germany were there also romances of Arthur. In fact, they existed in every language of Christendom at the time (Lunt 121). This spirit was preserved in the re-workings of writers throughout history. The legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, whether truly every existent or not, have had a profound influence on virtues, ideals, morals, and literature throughout history.
The legend of King Arthur has intrigued generations for over a thousand years. Over these years, this tapestry has been handed down through the hands of many gifted storytellers. Bits and pieces were taken out and replaced by new strands woven in to fabricate a slight variation of the original that’s suitable for the audience or perhaps the storyteller himself. These modifications are evident in the 1981 film of Excalibur and Thomas Malory’s “Le Morte d’Arthur” published in 1485. The film incorporates magical acts while religious allusions are portrayed in the text. There are several characters that appeared in one but not the other. The two versions have the same essential elements, but with some alterations. The main changes in the story plot are the events leading to the battle and the battle itself. The two versions have the same essential elements, but with some alterations.
As the roles were essentially cemented into the culture, manipulations such as crossovers provide a source of conflict and intrigue into the narrative of the plays. Two of Shakespea...