等待戈多语言分析.docx

Absurdism in Waiting for GodotWen Ni Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of Bachelor of Arts Faculty of English Language and Culture Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (May 2014)AbstractThis paper explores the use of language in Waiting for Godot so as to see Samuel Becketts idea of absurdism. The language analysis of the play focuses on two major aspects: the sentences and the words. Also, information of the play and absurdism will be introduced as the background knowledge. This paper is divided into three parts. Part I introduces the basic information and the historical background of Samuel Beckett andWaiting for Godot. Part II analyzes the language of this play in details, and explains how they embody absurdism. This part will be divided into three parts, including the sentences, words and symbolism in Waiting for Godot. More specifically, this part analyzes the sentences grammar, coherence between sentences, repetition, description of scene and symbolism in the play. Part III is a conclusion of this paper. This part relates the absurdism in Waiting for Godot to its historical background. Keywords: Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, absurdism, languageThesis statement Waiting for Godot, which is written in an absurd technique, exposes the chaos of the society and the nothingness of peoples spiritual life after war, and we can learn how Samuel Beckett uses the absurd technique through the language use of Waiting for Godot, including the sentences grammar, coherence between the sentences, and the wording details. Outline 1. Introduction1.1Samuel Beckett andWaiting for Godot1.2Backgroundof the play1.3 My thesis statement2. Analysis of absurdism inWaiting for Godot2.1Introduction of absurdism2.2Sentences2.2.1Sentences grammar2.2.2Sentences coherence2.3Words2.3.1Repetition2.3.2Description of scene2.4Symbolism3.Conclusion1. Introduction1.1Samuel Beckett andWaiting for GodotThe French writer Samuel Beckett(19061989)is a novelist, playwright, and poet in the 20th century. Burton Feldmans book The Nobel Prize records that Samuel Beckett has win the 1969Nobel Prize in Literature and he writes “in new forms for the novel and drama” (Feldman 56). Beckett is a representative of the writing group he belongs to, which is named absurdist. Among his works, the one most familiar to public must be the play Waiting for Godot. This play was published in 1952, not long after World War II. The play Waiting for Godot has a very simple but unique plot. The two heroes Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for a man called Godot. To reduce the boring feeling, they keep talking about something and repeat them again and again. They wait in the same place for three days but Godot doesnt arrive at all. Every day when the night is coming, a child comes to tell them that Godot will not arrive. Vladimir and Estragon have already lost their hope. They decide to commit suicide but finally fail to do that. Samuel Beckett doesnt tell the audiences why Vladimir and Estragon should wait for Godot in the play. Also, he doesnt tell whether Godot has arrived in the end. Audiences cannot know the beginning and ending of the story directly. It is a unique narrative pattern. To get better understanding of this narrative pattern, we must study the historical background of this play at first. 1.2Backgroundof the playWaiting for Godot has been published in 1952, not long after World War II which continued from 1939 to 1945. There were survivors who witnessed the cruelty of the war. Through documentaries about World War II, these survivors recalled what had happened during war and exposed it to the public. For example, in an interview in 2009, Kolodziejczyk, a Poland survivor narrated that when the war had just broken out, he saw bombs rain on the town. He was so scared to see fire and fog everywhere, mixing with the scream and crying of people in the town. In the interview he also told about his witnessing of a little girls death. There are many other memoirs by the World War II survivors that provide us with evidences of the war. Through these recollections of history, we are able to learn that in the 1950s, Europe has only suffered World War II. A large number of people died during the war. Many people lost their parents, children and lovers. Lots of houses were destroyed so that many people were homeless. They lacked shelters and food. It was quite a lifeless and desperate scene. Waiting for Godot was created in such background. The author who lived in Europe had also gone through the war. According to Martin Esslins(19182002) book Theatre of the Absurd, the hometown of Samuel Beckett was invaded and occupied by German army. Beckett joined an organization to resist the invaders. He lived in danger since some of the organization members were arrested by German army. He “felt the effects of war and invasion at first hand” recording in the book Samuel Beckett by Ronan McDonald（McDonald 14）. Through these records we learn that Samuel Beckett has not only gone through World War II, but also witnessed the miserable living situation of European people. Having such experience, Samuel Beckett may express a depressed feeling in his works. Also in Samuel Beckett, Ronan McDonald mentions that Beckett is strongly affected by the war so that in his article works there is always a sense of chaos and the plot of persecution. Waiting for Godot can be an example of this chaotic sense. Concrete analysis will be represented in the second part of this paper. 1.3 My thesis statementSamuel Beckett used a unique technique to express his thought, which can be analyzed through the language, symbols, plot and so on of Waiting for Godot. Language use is the main issue to be discussed in this paper. To quote from the article of Professor Saira Akhter and Mazhar Hayat, Samuel Becketts play is known for “disintegrated language” (Akhter 1). To better understand this concept, the sentences grammar and coherence, words repetition, and detail description of scene are to be researched. Also, uses of symbolism will be involved in the language analysis in this paper. Through the work Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett exposes a scene that people are living in a meaningless and desperate life. The world war brought too much harm to the people both physically and spiritually. Therefore people should more cherish the peace rather than provoking a war easily. 2. Analysis of absurdism inWaiting for Godot2.1Introduction of absurdismIn Martin Esslins Theatre of the Absurd, he raises the concept of “absurd theatre”, regarding it as a significant reflection of his generation. The Hutchinson Encyclopedia records that absurd theatre is “a designation for particularplaysofabsurdist fictionby written by Europeanplay wrights in the late 1950s” (Austin 261). In terms of the historical background, absurd theatre occurs after World War II. Memoirs and history records like The Diary of Anne Frank by Jewish girl Anne Frank and History of World War II by English historian ArnoldJosephToynbee (18891975) offer us knowledge about peoples living situation during and after World War II. They expose that people have suffered the cruelty of the world war and what they face is a dilapidated and arid world. Society becomes disordered and life becomes meaningless. Martin Esslin mentions in Theatre of the Absurd that the circumstances influence the creating form of artists in that generation. He tries to distinguish these artists which he defines as absurdist playwrights from other group of playwrights. He regards that traditional playwrights like Jean Giraudoux (18821944) and Albert Camus (19131960), though presenting the meaningless life as absurdist playwrights do, tend to concerning more about the logic and perspicuity of the plot and theme in their plays, while absurdist playwrights neglect the reasonability in plot, language and other constitutions of the play. J. L. Styan also clarifies in his work The Dark Comedy that absurdist playwrights “focus not on logical acts, realistic occurrences, or traditional character development, instead they focus on human beings trapped in an incomprehensible world subject to any occurrence, no matter how illogical”(Styan 218). These absurdist playwrights, which include Samuel Beckett(19061989), Eugen Ionescu (19091994), Harold Pinter(19302008) and so on, adopt an absurd technique. The absurd technique can be analyzed through the language use, character and plot in the play. American linguist Edward Sapir (18841939)has pointed out in his book Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech that language is “a tool to express meaning”(Sapir 1). He integrates two kinds of definitions about language by linguists, clarifying that language is not only a semiotic system but also a communicating tool. So language is an important part in literary analysis. It conveys what the characters and what the authors want to express to the readers. In theatre of the absurd, language use can be analyzed to present the absurdism of the play. Waiting for Godot will be taken as an example for language analysis. 2.2 Sentences2.2.1Sentences grammarThe first aspect to be discussed is the sentences, which will be divided into sentences grammar and sentences coherence. Inlinguistics,grammaris the set ofstructuralrules governing the composition ofwords andphrases, which means that sentences obey certain grammar. There are some basic sentential forms according to sentences grammar in linguistics. For instance, there are S十V form, which means a sentence with a subject and a predicate structure, and S十V十O form, which indicates a sentence constituted by a subject, a predicate and an object. The basic sentential forms listed in linguistics material all possess the structure of subject and predicate, which illustrates that the subject and predicate structure are indispensable to a sentence. In Waiting for Godot, there are some sentences that do not obey the sentences grammar mentioned above. Here provides some examples in the text. In the beginning of the first act, we can see such description: Acountryroad.Atree.Evening.(Beckett 1)Samuel Beckett uses only some nouns to compose sentences independently. The sentences listed above lack subject, predicate or object. They do not obey the basic sentential forms. Another example can be found in the beginning of this play:VLADIMIR:Hand in hand from the top of the Eiffel Tower, among the first.(Becket 3)In this sentence, “hand in hand”“from the top of the Eiffel Tower” and “among the first” are three adverbial structures. They are composed together without any subject or predicate to link them. It is difficult to tell what meaning this sentence conveys since there is no subject or verb in it - or to explain more understandably there is no doer or action. More obvious evidence is the harangue said by Lucky in Act I: LUCKY:Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua within a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mle, final vociferations) . . . tennis . . . the stones . . . so calm . . . Cunard . . . unfinished . . .(Beckett 41-42)This long sentence does not have any pause. We are not able to tell which the subject is or which the object is. What Lucky is talking is almost impossible to be understood.Professor Saira Akhter and Mazhar Hayat use a term “grammatical deviations” to describe this absurd technique of sentences grammar by Samuel Beckett. In their essay Grammatical Deviations in Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot, they state that Samuel Beckett “breaks the norms of English language to get the readers attention, to develop his interest and to create his indulgence in the play” (Akhter 1). This deviation of grammar is a unique technique by Samuel Beckett. 2.2.2Sentences coherenceAlso in Waiting for Godot, another unique feature of sentences is to be analyzed, which is the sentences coherence. Not only is each sentence created in an absurd way regardless of their grammar, but also is the coherence between them.As is mentioned above, Martin Esslin regards that traditional playwrights like Jean Giraudoux concerns more about the logic and perspicuity. A strict logic between sentences and between descriptions will promote the plot. However, in Waiting for Godot, there is seldom logical coherence between sentences. It means that, the conversation between Vladimir and Estragon has no logic at all. An example in the text can help to prove this:VLADIMIR: You should have been a poet. ESTRAGON: I was. (Gesture towards his rags.) Isnt that obvious? Silence. VLADIMIR: Where was I . . . Hows your foot? ESTRAGON: Swelling visibly. VLADIMIR: Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story? ESTRAGON: No.(Beckett 5) In this conversation, they are talking about “poet” at first. Then the topic changes into “Estragons foot” without any transition relating them. But very quickly the topic becomes “two thieves”, which is totally unrelated to the topic of “poet” or “Estragons foot”. There is no logical coherence between the sentences they are speaking at all. Another example can be observed as well:ESTRAGON: We came here yesterday. VLADIMIR: Ah no, there youre mistaken. ESTRAGON: What did we do yesterday? VLADIMIR: What did we do yesterday? ESTRAGON: Yes. VLADIMIR: Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when youre about.(Beckett 8) There is no transitional conjunction between the sentence “What did we do yesterday?” and “Yes.”, or between the sentence “Yes.” and “Why . . .”. It is unable to tell what the relation between each two sentence is. According to linguistics material, there are several kinds of logical coherence between sentences, including causal relation, adversative relation, additive relation, coordinate relation and conditional relation. In the example listed above, we can hardly find these relations between any two sentences like “What did we do yesterday?” and “Yes.”. It is also a unique technique in this play. Through this incoherence between sentences, Waiting for Godot displays a scene that two heroes keep talking with the topics change very frequently. Sometimes when one of them is answering the question from the other one, another person already opens a new topic. It seems that they dont really concern about what the other person answers or feels. Maybe they dont care about each other at all. They communicate with the other one only to spend the time, because they dont know what other things they can do. The incoherent conversation between them does not look like a normal conversation, but more like the soliloquy of themselves. In this scene, language seems to lose its function as a communicating tool. Like what Leslie Kane has mentioned, “Much of the dialogue in absurdist drama reflects this kind of evasiveness and inability to make a connection” (Kane 159-160) .It should be related to the historical background when Europe has suffered the war and people are stricken both physically and spiritually. They are in a chaotic and dazed situation in which they have less and less contact with other people. The function of language is weakening since communications between people reduce. 2.3 Words2.3.1RepetitionThe second aspect of language analysis is about words. It is divided into two parts: repetition and description of scene. In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett repeats a word or phrases again and again in some places. For example, not long after the conversation begins, it has:ESTRAGON: (feebly). Help me! VLADIMIR: It hurts? ESTRAGON: (angrily). Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts! VLADIMIR: (angrily). No one ever suffers but you. I dont count. Id like to hear what youd say if you had what I have. ESTRAGON: It hurts? VLADIMIR: (angrily). Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!(Beckett 3)The dialogue displayed above is not long, but in this conversation the word “hurt” is mentioned for six times by the two heroes. Also, the sentence “Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!” is first raised by Estragon then repeated by Vladimir. In this conversation, Estragon and Vladimir are actually repeating what the other one has been saying before. It seems that they are talk to each other without intellection. Another repetition can be found in Act II: VLADIMIR: Help! ESTRAGON: Im going. VLADIMIR:Dont leave me! Theyll kill me! POZZO: Where am I? VLADIMIR: Gogo! POZZO: Help! VLADIMIR: Help! ESTRAGON: Im going. VLADIMIR: Help me up first, then well go together.(Beckett 85-86)In this selected dialogue, Vladimir repeats the word “help” continuously. In the dialogue after this selected one, another character in this play Pozzo repeats the word “help” as Vladimir does. The conversation goes like this: POZZO: Help! ESTRAGON: Got it in one! VLADIMIR: I begin to weary of this motif. ESTRAGON: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain! Cain! POZZO: Help!(Beckett 89)The word “help” is repeated again by Pozzo. It is mentioned now and again through the conversation between the three characters. The same word constantly occurs in the dialogue, which will cause a sense of monotony to the audiences. Also, in the play, Vladimir and Estragon keep mentioning about the word “go”. They always say “Lets go” and “Im going”. But actually after they mention about such ideas, they do not go or even move at all. They still stand there and keep talking. It seems that they dont know what they are saying and doing indeed.In psychiatry, repetition of language is viewed a