زبان و سبک گفتار شخصیت در نمایشنامۀ مجنون محبت، نوشتۀ سام شپرد

این مقاله به بررسی زبان و سبک گفتار شخصیت »می « (may) در نمایشنامۀ مجنون محبت، نوشتۀ سام شپرد می پردازد. برای بررسی زبان و مطالعۀ سبک گفتار این شخصیت، از نظریه های سبک شناسی سارا میلز استفاده شده است که متون را در سه سطح کلمه ای، جمله ای و گفتمان بررسی می کند. مسئله ای که نویسندگان در این مقاله مطرح کرده اند این است که با استفاده از ایده های سارا میلز، مشخص کنند که آیا شخصیت »می « فعال و قدرتمند است یا خیر. همچنین، هدف این مقاله آن است که شخصیت می را نسبت به شخصیت های مرد در این نمایشنامه بسنجد و مشخص کند که آیا این شخصیت زن مطیع شخصیت های مرد است و آن چنان که برخی منتقدان ادعا می کنند، تصویری ضد زن از او ارائه شده است یا خیر. یافته های این بررسی نشان می دهد که می شخصیتی مطیع دارد که توانایی اثر گذاری بر محیط و اطرافیانش را ندارد و نسبت به شخصیت های مرد نمایشنامه دارای ضعف های بیشتری است.

The Study of Language and Style in Sam Shepard’s Fool for Love

This article aims to investigate the language of lsquo;May rsquo; and has presented a stylistic study of Shepard rsquo;s Fool for Love (1983). To do the study, the writers of this article have benefited from lsquo;Level of the Word rsquo;, lsquo;Level of the Phrase/Sentence rsquo; and lsquo;Level of Discourse rsquo; presented by Sara mills. Using Mills rsquo; ideas, the problem suggested in this article is to show whether lsquo;May rsquo; is a powerful character or not. The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the character of lsquo;May rsquo; with the male characters of the play, and answer the following: Is she always obeying male characters of the play? And according to critics, has Shepard presented a weak female character in the play? The findings of the study show that lsquo;May rsquo; has a submissive character and cannot affect others around her. She is also weaker than the male characters of the play.MethodologyMills (1995) identifies three levels of analysis, the first of which is analysis at the level of the word (p. 62); at this level she identifies various methods that sexism is found in language, and they are as follows:Linguistic DeterminismGeneric PronounsGeneric Nouns Women as the Marked Form(pp. 6270)Mills (1995) then goes on to discuss ldquo;Sexism and Meaning rdquo;, raising questions about the way in which meanings may be sexspecific; she discusses some problematic areas, namely:Naming and AndrocentrismThe Semantic Derogation of WomenEndearments and DiminutivesFemale Experience: Euphemism and TabooLexical Gaps: Male Point of ViewDictionaries and Gatekeepers(pp. 7794) The second level of analysis which Mills (1995) proposes is analysis at the level of the phrase/sentence; she expands by suggesting areas that require particular attention in an analysis, said areas being:Readymade PhrasesPresupposition and InferenceMetaphorJokes and HumourTransitivity Choices(pp. 98110)Regarding transitivity, Mills (1995) states that it has to do with the ldquo;representation of who acts (who is an agent) and who is acted upon (who is affected by the actions of others) rdquo;; she goes on to explain that there are three types of choices: ldquo;material, mental and relational rdquo; (p. 110). Mills (1995) elaborates further:In this system, processes can be categorized into those elements which are actions which can be observed in the real world and which have consequences (material), for example, lsquo;She swam across the river rsquo;; those which take place largely in the mind (mental), for example, lsquo;She thought about the situation rsquo;; and those which simply relate two elements together (relational), for example, lsquo;It is rather cold rsquo;. Within material action processes, there are two further choices, between lsquo;material action intention rsquo; and lsquo;material action supervention rsquo;: with material action intention, there is a clear will to do something, for example, lsquo;I broke the window, in order to get into the house rsquo;; but with supervention, there is an attempt to capture for analysis those verbal processes where things are not done intentionally, for example, lsquo;I broke my favourite glasses rsquo;. (pp. 110111)As has become clear, transitivity allows for investigation into whether a character is active or passive, and also whether a character manages to have an effect on her surroundings and other characters. The final level of analysis Mills (1995) observes is the level of discourse; she indicates a few areas for analysis at this level which consist of:Characters/RolesFragmentationFocalizationSchemata(pp. 123148).ConclusionFrom the very beginning of the play, Eddie is shown as the active character while May remains the passive one. Also, inferences were made that May cannot provide for herself, coupled with the fact that May is the goal of Eddie rsquo;s materialactionintention act, shows that May is the powerless passive goal whereas Eddie is the powerful active agent. Even when May makes Eddie the goal of her act, Eddie is simultaneously doing the same, and the difference is that May is physically subordinated as well. In excerpt 2, Eddie rsquo;s belief that May needs someone to check up on her, suggests that May cannot take care of herself, and as such she is viewed as powerless and inferior. The aforementioned presupposition is indicative of an antifeminist viewpoint in the play. Eddie proceeds by using a materialactionintention act whereas May uses an internal mental process, and said processes point to Eddie being powerful and active while May is powerless and passive.Excerpt 3 begins with Eddie using a ldquo;readymade phrase rdquo; to indicate that because May has aged, she should not be dating, and this is a negative view designed to damage May rsquo;s perception of herself to make her believe she is not attractive. Eddie goes on to threaten May with materialactionintention acts, which show May rsquo;s subordination and powerlessness. Therefore, the exchanges between Eddie and May are dominated by the former, and this suggests the subordination of femininity. In the fourth excerpt, May uses a relational process which suggests that she is a passive character; the fact that said relational process is used to hide her date from Eddie, further supports her passivity and powerlessness. May rsquo;s identity is also brought into question because she does not influence Eddie, and simply reacts to his words and action not being able to instigate anything