Stylistic anaylsis on drama text Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Stylistic anaylsis on drama text - Essay Example Despite being a king, who is powerful, Arthur does not through back insults at the man who continuously insults him. The second character, who is Man, is a disrespectful and arrogant person. He haughtily talks to King Arthur. He abuses him and calls him names like pig and dog. He does not respect the fact that Arthur is a king. The other character in the play, who is Galahad, is an interrogative person. He asks what the man was doing in England and if there was someone else they could talk to. Turn taking and topic control Conversations require to be controlled. There are norms to guide who talks and at what time. There are two steering norms in conversations (Short, 1996). These are: 1. One person to talk at a time 2. There should be no silence spells. The above helps a conversation to be smooth. In the extract below, questions have been used to signal the turn of the next speaker. Man: ’Allo. Whoo is eet? Arthur: I am King Arthur and these are my Knights of the Round Table. Whose castle is this? Man: This is the castle of my master, Guy de Loimbard. In the extract below, the norm of turn taking has been ignored. Man speaks even before Arthur passes his point. This is a sign of some misunderstanding. Arthur: Now look here, my good man†¦ Man: I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough†¦ The rule of topic control has been violated in the text. The subject matter in the conversation was King Arthur and his men seeking for accommodation in Guy de Lombard’s castle. As the conservation goes on, man deviates from the subject matter by naughtily telling King Arthur that his matter already has one and it is nice. This leads to the conversation being agitated, Man throwing insults at Arthur and ends up with one of Arthur’s men being killed. Conservational implicatures Conversational implicatures occur when one flouts a conversational maxim so as to pass intendedinformation which has not been literary ex pressed,(Wilson & Sperber 1981).In the text in question, there are instances where conversational maxims have been flouted to pass a supplementary meaning which has not been literally brought out. For example, the maxim of quality has been violated in the dialogue below from the extract. Arthur: Are you sure he’s got one? Man: Oh yes. It’s very nice. Fromthe above, man has violated the maxim of quality. He gives more information than simply doing what he has been requested to do. He wants Arthur to know that not only has his master got it but what he has is also nice. There is also an instance where the maxim (Wilson & Sperber, 1981) of manner has been violated. The speaker is unintelligible and purposely confusing when he responds to a question or when it is his turn to speak. The speaker fails to be concise and brief. In the example below; Arthur: If you will not show us the Grail we shall storm your castle. Man: You don’t frighten us, English pig-dog. Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you so-called Arthur King, you and your silly English k†¦.niggets. We see that man gets out of topic and starts throwing insults at King Arthur. He does that to show what he feels about King Arthur. We also notice a conversational impl