Assessment of postmodernism in Modern Drama

Postmodernism in Samuel

Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”

12/8/2015

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 2

Ages, throughout the history, has been identified with the terms. Post modernism is hard to

define in one single dimension of any term as still it is a subject of heated debates and

discussions for its definition. Hans Bertens, (critic and author) sums it as, “postmodernism means

and has meant different things from humble literary origins in 1950’s to level of global

conceptualization in 1980’s”. Generally postmodernism is considered as extension of “post-structural ideas of language”. It follows the comprehension of concept that “language is not

anchored in reality, that there is infinite uncertainty in the words that we use and that our ideas of

what is sane, rational and sensible are just something decided by our particular Discourse which

could easily be wrong”. Keynotes of post modernist documents and writings are absurdity,

ineffectualness, fruitlessness, meaninglessness, aimlessness, feebleness and weariness. In other

words post modernist writers tend to play with language and examine interlinks between words

and the relation between words and worlds, keeping in view Saussure’s idea of arbitrariness of

language. It seems like “If words can’t be used to tell us truths about the world then we can at least have fun with them.” They try to dismantle the traditions of text writing and hopes of

audience related to text. Waiting for godot indentifies with “theatre of absurd” and follows up both modernism and post modernism, introducing expressionism and surrealistic techniques in

drama. Keeping in view its ambiguous language, paradox, ironical representation of characters,

fragmentation, identity and existential problems and subjective approach towards the life makes

it more post modernist script than a modernist writing. Theatre of absurd is purely outcome of

postmodernism which was greatly influenced by existential philosophy dealing with the

nothingness of the world and aimlessness of life which was the result of mass pessimism created

by world wars. According to Martin Esslin, a theater critic, this the “one of the successes of the post-war theater”

In the play we see two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, on a country road by the tree waiting

for godot who never appears on the scene. Both have nothing significant about their lives they do

every possible thing to avoid the silence of universe around them travelling in past present and

future unaware of scientific clock. Their lives are interrupted by three characters Pozzo the

megalomaniac capitalist, his poor slave lucky and a boy without any name who appears to be

messenger of godot. The deserted setting and aimless waiting reflects the psychological bareness

and unproductively of modern men after the disastrous world war.

“It is so hard to live your life knowing the person you want to be with for the rest of your life

never actually notices you. Hoping that someone might notice you, wishing that this person

feels the same one of these days, can be so hard to cope with. How long can we be hopeful?

How long does a believer have to wait? Everyone is waiting for that somehow, someday. But

why does it have to be this way? Why does every time we wait for somebody or something we

mostly fail...? Maybe we fall in the trap of waiting; a waiting that has no solution except

keeping on waiting.”

Beginning with a prelude to modernism we believe that modernism to the “lack of central hierarchy” and puts science and technology at backstage, because play starts with waiting for godot and ends with waiting for godot even the title of play signifies the subject matter of play.

The play talk about nothingness because here waiting itself is nothing. In post modern world

nothing is logical and reality is relative. After world war humanity lost faith in ordered organized

and rational universe. Birth, death, every happening is by chance.

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 3

The very example of post modernism in waiting for godot is the language game of Vladimir and

Estragon. Their absurd fragmented and clueless conversations depict the fruitlessness of human

mind and absurd psychological processes of modern man. This fragmentation is the language

technique used by post modern writers.

Vladimir: They make a noise like wings

Estragon: Like Leaves

Vladimir: Like Sand

Estragon: Like Leaves [Silence] {(58) act-two}

This fragmented and clueless conversation hints about relative reality and language’s

arbitrariness. Both have objective reality of their own. This fragmented language and short

sentences depict the postmodern writing technique forming a concept about the meaninglessness

and nothingness of the world and character’s existence. In postmodernism, nonsense makes

sense. Both characters depict the meaninglessness of everyday life activities while having

fragmented conversations, clueless jokes and nonsense entertainment to kill the time.

Similarly Lucky’s mono dialogue shatters the structural existence of language taking it to beyond

the reason which is again the trait of postmodern literature that it breaks through the modern

reasoning and logic. Topped with grammatical, ungrammatical structure, correlating irrelevant

concepts and abrupt order of thoughts expressed in alien words set path for postmodernist writers

to make language free from the conventions of absolute reality and make it relative. Waiting for

godot shows clear picture of frustrated, megalomaniac and biased society of 21st century through

the characters. Pozzo the rich megalomaniac dehumanizing his slave Lucky and Estragon

identifies with Marxist set up of modern man creating an illusion civilization which gives equal

rights and status to human beings defying their origins, race and color. Through Pozzo’s dialogue

in act one, “The tears of the world are a constant/quantity. For each one who Begins to

weep, somewhere else another stop. The /same is true of the laugh” (line; 837-840) we see

the ambiguity related with reality and existence of human being in the nothingness of the world.

Beckett tries to create his own reality through words which seemingly denies the valid nature of

truth and reality. Through bleak and ironical language the dramatist tries to illustrate the notion

of ultimate reality, its existence and sense of the universe around the characters. But this

communication gap proves it a failure and Atheism is the one of pillar of 21st century society,

made stronger by existential philosophers which sometimes appear in waiting for godot

embedded in frustrated characters. Though we find references of Adam, can able, saints, bible,

marry and Christ but still we see secular approach of Vladimir and Estragon considering life a

burden. Vladimir’s dialogue “I remain in the dark” shows the absence of spiritual realism in

21st century men. In the present society we are suffering from chaotic situations, caused by

scientific and technological advancements, which result in frustration, loneliness, alienation and

machine like structure of human mind and nervous system. Vladimir and Estragon seem to be

effected by chaotic situations as they don’t share their dreams, don’t trust each other, don’t share their views and avoid to help each other sometimes and waiting for godot who never comes and

they are uncertain whether his presence will be a beneficial or harmful for them. Even the

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 4

uncertainty of godot’s coming is there in Vladimir and Estragon’s dialogues but still they wait for godot.

Vladimir: He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think.

Estragon: You think.

Vladimir: I must have made a note of it. (He fumbles in his pockets, bursting with miscellaneous

rubbish.)

Estragon: (very insidious). But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? Or

Monday? Or Friday?

Vladimir: (looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in the landscape). It's not

possible!

Estragon: Or Thursday? (act 1).

And the most helplessness is seen when they are not even sure of whether it’s the godot they are waiting for someone else.

Estragon: His name is Godot?

Vladimir: I think so.

Apart from everything we don’t know who is Godot, when he will come and how he appears and

most basic question is why Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for him. The 21st century man has

got insecurity and helpless attitude towards life where someone from outside is expected to take

lead of lives of suffering souls which are searching for purpose and meaning of life. The only

way to feel their existence is the “meaningless and ambiguous conversations/communication” as Estragon mentions it in one his dialogues in act 1: “we always find something, eh Didi, to give

us the impression we exist”. Uncertainty about life, its purpose and existence in the world are

the dilemmas of postmodern society where human beings are unable to set a course of life or

unable to understand the order of this world or life. This uncertainty is highlighted by the

laziness and inactivity of the character that do nothing to make a change in the reality or life. As

in act 1 Estragon says that,

Vladimir: Well? What do we do?

Estragon: Don’t let’s do anything. It’s safer.

Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.

Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: Godot.

Because of this uncertainty both men are afraid of making any movement or change. Even basic

notions of life are uncertain including death and birth as Vladimir mentions it as, “Nothing is

certain when we are about”. Even the forgetfulness of Estragon is the best illustration of chaos

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 5

and existentialist minds of post modern times for which this world makes no sense and life has

no certain purpose. While Vladimir remembers very minute things vaguely.

Vladimir: Wait . . . we embraced . . . we were happy . . . happy . . . what do we do now that we're

happy . . . go on waiting . . . waiting . . . let me think . . . it's coming . . . go on waiting . . . now

that we're happy . . . let me see . . . ah! The tree!

Estragon: The tree?

Vladimir: Do you not remember?

Estragon: I'm tired.

Vladimir: Look at it. They look at the tree.

Estragon: I see nothing.

Vladimir: But yesterday evening it was all black and bare. And now it's covered with leaves.

Estragon: Leaves?

Vladimir: In a single night.

This loss of memory is associated with loss of identity. Postmodernism comes along with

globalization. Globalization is the process in which all human beings are unified making one

society which eliminates the individual identities and make one culture. Literary trends in

association with globalization now deal with subjective issues and ordinary people. The

characters of Estragon and Viladimir completely set in frame of globalization. They are ordinary

people doing ordinary things (waiting etc.) without any thrilling action like medieval knights and

princes. Furthermore setting of the play is not specified nor its time so it can happen at any time

anywhere in the world. And it deals with issues of human being, mankind, and whole humanity

producing sense of universality. This universality can be seen through the names of characters,

Vladimir (Russian name), Estragon (French name), Pozzo (Italian name) and Lucky (English

name).their interaction with each other and presence together in one environment indicates that

now one culture has dominated the whole global village. Everyone belonging to any identity is

sufferings same chaos and problems. In short postmodernism has clutched all the universe in its

hands.

Comic element amalgamated with the tragic incidents and environment clutches the human

psychology with the recognition of “helpless absurdity” of 21st century man. Vladimir and

Estragon talk about nonsense comical things which helps us to understand the mental state of

those characters even when Estragon’s pants fall he doesn’t notice it. Vladimir makes him realize

of it.

Estragon: why don’t we hang ourselves?

Vladimir: with what?

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 6

Estragon: you haven’t got a bit of rope?

Vladimir: no

Estragon: then we can’t

Vladimir: let’s go

Estragon: oh, wait, there is my belt

Vladimir: it’s too short

Estragon: you could hang on to my legs

Vladimir: and who would hang onto mine?

The most amazing part of the play is Lucky’s speech which leaves other’s mind numb and blank because of alien vocabulary and senselessly linked ideas but from his speech we get certainty of

god’s existence when he talks about God’s presence with human beings and he watches over and suffer with the sufferings of man and loves man. He has white beard : “Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal

God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without

extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine

aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time

will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons

unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire

flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to

say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even

though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering

what is more that as a result of the labors left unfinished...”(p. 34)

Though we don’t see much hope in overall mood of the play but at some instances we see light

of hope in deepness of gloom and desperation expressed by the characters in the play. In spite of

all the chaos, restlessness and boredom they still remember some of the dreams or hopes from

the past when they talk about bible and gospel in act 1.

Vladimir: do you remember the Gospel?

Estragon: I remember the maps of the holy land. Colored they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea

was pale blue .the very look of it made me thirsty. That’s where we’ll go, I used to say, that’s where we’ll go for our honeymoon. We’ll swim. We’ll be happy.

Despite of the fact that their uncertainties and nothingness causes failure and unhappiness but

still find hope in each other’s existence. Even when they leave each other they come back again

and try to make sense of their existence together. In the play Vladimir doesn’t let Estragon to

sleep and when he asks for a reason, Vladimir says I was feeling lonely. Thus both of them try

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 7

to exist in relation to each other. Hope for the future is obvious from not their dialogues only but

the tree which is dead in act 1 but blossoms up in the second act. We also see fluctuating hope in

consistency of Vladimir and Estragon while waiting of godot even a boy brings messages of

godot who is always delaying his arrival but both of them talk about leaving while they don’t move even and still wait for him.

Post modernism talks about the predetermined norms and traditions which make man suffer in

terms of binary opposition. In this sense we can assume that both Estragon and Vladimir are

incompatible with each other where Estragon has limited and superficial thinking mostly

considering emotions and feeling while Vladimir can be seen a personality with mind who

contemplates and has deep understanding as shown in following dialogues in act 1:

Vladimir: One out of four. Of the other three, two don't mention any thieves at all and the third

says that both of them abused him.

Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: What?

Estragon: What's all this about? Abused who?

Vladimir: The Savior.

Estragon: Why?

Vladimir: Because he wouldn't save them.

Estragon: From hell?

Vladimir: Imbecile! From death.

Estragon: I thought you said hell.

Vladimir: From death.

Postmodernism rejects the traditionalism. Traditionalism says “there are always pre-determined

rules, explanations for people and their life and truth is objective”. Since there is no objectivism

in waiting for godot and we don’t see traditional plot in the play, we can say Beckett breaks from

traditions of previous stages. We see a circular plot without any proper story and line of action.

Literature always has been a source to see reflection of the society in respective ages it’s been

produced. That's why readers are always able to hint the influence and effect of the times and

history in one particularly literary piece of work. Postmodernism supports existentialism that

says looking for future and making sense of this world is meaningless as wait of main characters

never get accomplisehed and their hopes of being saved by a savior never get fulfilled.

Postmodernism states that language is relative and a text can’t be assigned one single meaning.

Different readers can produce different meanings and language is absurd. It somehow fails to

provide the service of communication causing ambiguity and absurdity. As it can be pointed out

in throughout the text of waiting for godot which sometimes makes no sense and reader is unable

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 8

to comprehend it. Waiting for Godot reflects alienation of human being and confused personal

realities. It also questions history through discussing different references to previous texts in

order to get some organization in their present but vagueness and absurdity of present couldn’t let it happen.

Post oder ist study of Waiti g for Godot

Page | 9

Reference List

1. “Samuel Beckett’s waiting for Godot: A Postmodernist Study” by Noorbakhsh Hooti

2. “Postmodernism” by Jean Baudrillard

3. Textual references from “waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett

Conversational Analysis of

“Waiting for Godot”

to Reveal

Linguistic Ambiguity and Humor

Date: 22nd December 2015

Final Research Project

Semantics

Page | 1

Catch line

Chapter One

Introduction

Scope of the study

Research questions

Aims and objectives

Paul Grice’s conversational rules

Chapter Two Literature review

Methodology

Sources

Data collection

Chapter Three Data analysis

Statistics

Conclusion

Page | 2

Conversational analysis of Waiting for Godot to reveal linguistic ambiguity and

humor

ABSTRACT

In the light of pragmatics (contextual semantics), the purpose of this study is to the effects

caused violation of conversational rules. Language is the best tool for communication between

two speakers but if speakers don’t follow the certain rules during their conversations it can cause absurdity and ambiguity in language. The ambiguity is the basic hindrance in comprehension of

language. In this paper, we have analyzed the ambiguous and absurd conversations present in

20th

century play “Waiting for Godot” scripted by Samuel Beckett. Our study is framed in body

of “cooperative theory of conversation”, proposed by Paul Grice. We have done quantitative

analysis of conversation of characters (of “Waiting for Godot”) and located where and how they

have deviated from rules prescribed by Gricean theory.

Page | 3

Chapter One

Introduction: Pragmatics is well defined study area of semantics. It’s mainly concerned with use of a language

in specific context. Pragmatics has its roots embedded in semiotics, linguistics and philosophy of

language. Recently pragmatics is centered on theory of Implicatures, and cooperative principle

theory. It studies the writer’s/speaker’s utterances to which supposed to be deciphered by reader/listener to comprehend the meaning. Simply it focuses on context rather than syntax.

Context is determined by what is said before and after the utterance, the physical environment,

social connections and background information shared between a speaker and a listener.

Language is the mean of communication between people around the world. Sometimes people

don’t understand what we say. It’s not because they don’t hear but it’s because they are not able

to comprehend what is said to them. This misunderstanding, known as linguistic ambiguity,

happens when listeners are able to interpret more than one meaning of a linguistic expression.

Ambiguity in language occurs when a word, phrase or a sentence can be interpreted into multiple

meanings or a sentence can be framed into more than one structure .it exists both in spoken and

written language. Since ages it has been recognized as deficiency of language. Noam Chomsky,

famous cognitive linguist, has mentioned ambiguity that it serves negative proposes and in the

communication as it creates an information gap between then speaker and listener. But in recent

studies, cognitive scientist provided a positive impact of ambiguity over language and

communication. According to new researches, ambiguity provides speakers opportunity of

reusing the words and makes language efficient when listeners disambiguate it with help of the

pragmatically supported understanding. Ambiguity is always regarded as a problem for

communication but a cognitive scientist Ted Gibson, an MIT professor of cognitive science and

senior author of a paper describing the research to appear in the journal Cognition. "But once we

understand that context disambiguates, and then ambiguity is not a problem -- it's something you

can take advantage of, because you can reuse easy [words] in different contexts over and over

again." So relying on Gibson’s argument, to distinguish or identify ambiguity we need to cling

with traditional semantics focusing on meaning in connotative/denotative aspects of language.

Here by meaning we focus on the conceptual meaning that is processed by our cognitive system.

Denotation is the exact meaning applied on the expression while connation is the meaning

associated with the properties and traits of expressions. Ambiguity in language can be analyzed

at two levels, lexical ambiguity and structural ambiguity. Lexical ambiguity holds on lexemes or

words including different lexical relations like homophones, homonyms and polysemy and pun

words which cause misunderstanding in comprehension. Lexical ambiguity is more common

than structural ambiguity. It usually considers the use of pun words, homonyms and

homophones.

Scope and Limitations of the Study Our study is a kind of conversational analysis that is carried out as analysis and interpretation of

selected short conversations in the light of Conversational Implicatures proposed by Paul Grice.

Implicatures are the result of violation or observance of the maxims of Conversational Principal.

We have discussed different types of Conversational Implicatures. We have attempted here to

Page | 4

study the communicative function of language in drama and its effect on the surrounding. Hence

we have restricted our study only to the Conversational Implicatures in dramatic conversational

passages selected from “Waiting for Godot.”

Research questions:

1. What is the role of pragmatics in comprehension of meaning?

2. What is building block of a conversation?

3. How language used in Waiting for Godot” produces ambiguous and humorous effect in conversation?

Aims and Objectives: Our aim of this study is to analyze that how language used in “Waiting for Godot” causes

ambiguity and absurdity in the play. Our basic focus in one the pragmatic principles that how

they make a conversation meaningful. We tried to explore the ways how speakers create

ambiguity to fulfill their purpose of communication.

Grice’s theory of cooperative principle

Grice proposed that when participants are involved in conversation with, they follow certain

rules called as “co-operative principle”. Grice said that utterances make sense no matter

whatever is uttered. Interlocutors (person involved in conversation) are successful in deriving

meaning. So it says as “Make your conversational contribution such as it is required, at the stage

at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are

engaged”. Cooperative principle is structured upon basic four pillars, called as maxims of

conversation (maxim of quantity, Maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner)

to bridge the gap between what an interlocutors has said and what he meant actually.

Observation or violation of these maxims results in (conversational) Implicatures. Implicatures

the action of implying a meaning beyond the literal sense of what is explicitly stated, for

example saying the frame is nice and implying I don't like the picture in it. And implication is

the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.

Conversational Implicatures is a type of extra or additional meaning that is not present at surface

level of utterances or sentences. So usually a speaker assumes that hearer will assume that

speaker’s conversation is relevant, truthful and enough to interpret even if it’s not clear at surface

level of utterance. According to Grice there are two types of meaning. Conventional (meaning

which provide information regardless of context) and non-conventional meaning. Our concern of

study is non conventional or conversational meaning. Conversational meaning deals with spoken

discourse usually dealing with interpretation on speaker’s utterances. This interpretation is

basically creation of meaning with the help of contextual information and it also confirms

application on four maxims of conversation proposed previously. So we say that Implicatures

can be carried out by help of four rules or maxims prescribed by cooperative principle.

I. Maxims of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the

exchange.

Page | 5

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

For example I say “Next door neighbors have 4 children.”

II. Maxims of Quality:

Try to make your contribution one that is true.

Do not say what you believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

For example: Ali has two PhD degrees. (Here I believe (have evidence) Ali has two PhD

degrees.

III. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.

IV. Maxims of Manner: Be perspicuous.

Avoid obscurity of expression.

Avoid ambiguity.

Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

Be orderly.

These maxims define conversational implicatures which is the target of cooperative principle. To

understand the conversational implicatures hearer or addressee needs:

1. Conventional meaning (apparent meaning)

2. Information about four maxims of cooperative principle.

3. Contextual information (linguistic or non-linguistic) about the topic

4. Background information about the conversation.

5. Most importantly, both interlocutors are familiar with Information listed above.

Meaning derived by interlocutors are of basically two types, depending upon relation of

speaker with maxims, implicatures can be either drawn by observing or floating these maxims of

conversation. When maxims are obeyed, a speaker depends on hearer to infer meaning but by

violating four maxims of conversation. A speaker obliges the addressee to catch on more

inferences to implicate meaning. As Yule has said that “it is speakers who communicate meaning

via implicatures and it is listeners who recognize those communicated meanings via inferences."

Violation of Grice’s Maxims:

Despite of the benefits given to interlocutors by Gricean maxims, they are not followed always,

their violation bears more meaning than if they are obeyed. Violation happens when one or more

maxims of conversation are not there in a conversation. Violation of maxims does not reflect of

an interaction breakdown. Interlocutors try to implicate these violated maxims as truthful,

enough, clear and relevant. Sometimes hearer encounters two are more than two meanings at

clear interpretation of the utterance. So a speaker’s intentions can be inferred by violation of four

maxims of conversation. Paradoxically enough, more often than not, people fail to observe the

maxims, be it deliberately or accidentally. There are five major ways of failing to observe a

maxim:

1. Flouting:

Flouting happens when a speaker intentionally diverts from a maxim in order to compel hearer to

infer a covert meaning on his own. For example a bride’s wedding gown is spoiled by makeup artist on her wedding day and she says” that’s really great, this made my day”.

Page | 6

We can infer meaning as:

The bride expressed pleasure at makeup artist for spoiling her dress.

2. There is no example in recorded history of people being delighted at having spoiled wedding

dress by someone.

3. We don’t have any reason to believe that the bride is trying to deceive us.

4. Unless the bride’s utterance is entirely pointless, she must be trying to convey another

message

5. the most related meaning is the exact opposite of the one she has expressed.

6. The bride is extremely annoyed at having the spoiled dress.

Flouting the Quantity Maxim: When a Speaker blatantly gives more or less information than required, s/he may flout the

Quantity Maxim and deliberately talk either too much or too little in compliance with the goal of

the ongoing conversation.

Flouting the Relation Maxim:

Such flouting tends to occur when the response is completely irrelevant to the topic. For example

at dinner table a mother asks her son about his December test result and he replies as “put some

more rice in my plate”. Here we can assume that probably he is trying to avoid his mother

because he doesn’t have good news to tell her.

Flouting the Manner Maxim:

The manner flouting involves the absence of clarity, brevity and transparency of message

conveyed or intensions behind that.

2. Violating:

Violation is defined as the unostentatious or ‘quiet’ non-observance of a maxim. A speaker who,

violates a maxim ‘will be liable to mislead’ (Grice 1975: 49). Violation is quite different from flouting. In violation of maxims we see there are chances to deceive people and give

inappropriate information intentionally to deceive others.

3. Infringing: (Infringing a maxim)

Maxim infringement happens when a Speaker doesn’t succeed in observing the maxim, although

the speaker has no intention of generating an implicatures and no intention of deceiving.

Generally infringing results from the imperfect linguistic performance caused by some mental,

psychological, physiological or another problem.

4. Opting out:

Opting out of a maxim happens when a speaker opts out of observing a maxim whenever s/he

indicates unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. Such deviation occurs when

a speaker remains silent or do not speak anything or required information. It can be seen in court

trials, witness-lawyer’s conversations, suspect-police conversation etc.

Page | 7

5. Suspending: Under certain circumstances/as part of certain events there is no expectation on the part

of any participant that one or several maxims should be observed (and non-fulfillment does not

generate any implicatures). Such cases include:

1) Suspending the Quality Maxim can be seen at funeral orations and obituaries, where people

praise the dead one ignoring all the harsh, cruel or bad sides of their lives.

2. Postmodernist art and literature is the best example of suspension of the Manner Maxim since

it does not care for clarity and lack of ambiguity.

3) In the case of speedy communication via telegrams, e-mails, notes, the Quantity Maxim is

suspended because such means are functional owing to their very brevity.

4) Jokes are not only conventionally untrue, ambiguously and seemingly incoherent, but are

expected to exploit ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness of meaning, which entails, among other

things, suspension of the Maxims of Quality, Quantity and Manner.

Page | 8

Chapter Two

Literature Review:

Conversation Analysis (CA) was inspired by a convergence of sociolinguistics. Beginning with

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and Anita Pomerantz in the 1960s, CA has

become an international interdisciplinary enterprise. Since the mid-1970s there has been an

explosion of interest in CA, which has been widely identified as a rigorous methodology. It has

had significant impact on the fields of business (through studies of work and organizations),

medicine (through analyses of doctor-patient interaction), legal studies (through examinations of

deviance, policing, and courts), science, computer and information studies, robotics, gender

studies, race and cross-cultural studies, as well as on sociology and social studies of language,

linguistics, communication, and semiotics. Inspired by Goffman and Garfinkel , largely through

their mutual connection with Sacks, the first detailed analyses of conversation, articulated by

Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, combined a Goffman-inspired interest in the moral commitment

involved in interaction with Garfinkel’s interest in the details involved in the production of the

fragile intelligibility that required that moral commitment. The reputation of CA as a rigorous

new approach to the study of language and social order was established through a foundational

paper on “turn-taking,” “A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of Turn-taking in

Conversation,” first published in 1974. Written jointly by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, the

paper established an “economy of turns,” and preferences related to turn-taking orders, as basic

organizing features of conversation. The spread of CA to various other disciplines was

accomplished through the work of Schegloff, Jefferson, Pomerantz, Christian Heath, Doug

Maynard, Don Zimmerman, Candace West, John Heritage, Paul Drew, George Psathas, Jeff

Coulter, and Paul Ten Have, among others.

The basic idea behind CA is that conversation is orderly in its details, that it is through detailed

order that conversation has meaning. The need is to display attention to the problems like how

any speaker can know whether or not the listener has understood what was said and provides a

way of explaining how the meaning of words are disambiguated in particular situations of use. It

also introduces an inevitable moral dimension to interaction. According to Sacks, the ability of

any speaker to take a recognizably intelligible turn next, after a prior turn displays understanding.

Thus, speaking in fragments, which linguistically would appear to be a problem, is a highly

efficient device for ensuring mutual intelligibility. It ensures that all participants who take turns

are fulfilling their listening and hearing requirements and either understand what has been said,

or display their lack of understanding in their next turn. Even speaking last demonstrates

attention to a long sequence of turns. All conversational preference orders have direct

implications for what can be done next in conversation and how immediately prior utterances can

be heard to follow from those before. Turn-taking preferences are sensitive to both the sequential

character of conversation, and the presentational selves of participants. There are thus elements

of both “within-turn” and “between-turn” preference orders that transcend particular

conversations. This view of the “context free/context sensitive” character of particular

Page | 9

conversations is quite distinct from the more popular, but problematic idea of context as shared

biographies, or shared cultural values—the view that characterizes conventional, postmodern,

and interpretive sociologies. The CA approach promises to explain not only how the mutual

intelligibility of words is achieved in areas of practical, technical, and instrumental importance,

but also why persons from different social “categories,” including those associated with race,

gender, culture and disability, experience conversational difficulties. Conversational analysis has

been done of politician’s press conferences and statements to confirm their use of ambiguous language to avoid the harsh questions, to hide the truth and not to act deliberately as liars. One of

the most famous researches about politician’s ambiguous language was done by MATS EKSTRÖM in 2014.he interviewed 25 Swedish politicians and analyzed their conversations in

interviews to reveal ambiguity created by not obeying the conversational rules prescribed by Paul Grice.

Methodology The conversational passages are selected from play “Waiting for Godot” are analyzed with

reference to the Conversational Implicatures. The basic material consists of Conversational

passage. The selected conversations are chosen because of the availability observance and

violation of the maxims of Cooperative Principle by the characters involved in the conversation.

We have used analytical and interpretative method to carry out our study. The process of analysis

involves identification and categorization of conversations in terms of violation of four maxims

of conversations to see the effect of it over language and meaning in the play.

Sources For this study we have taken help from articles, journals and books about pragmatics and

Gricean theory of cooperative principles available on internet to get familiar with functions of

pragmatic principles to avoid the ambiguity of language. And people by violating Gricean

cooperative principles achieve ambiguity and absurdity. A thorough study of 20th

century play is

done to analyze and provide textual examples for violation of conversational maxims proposed

by Paul Grice.

Data Collection

Data of our study is “text” taken from 20th century play “waiting for Godot” produced by Samuel

Beckett. We have selected 6 short conversation from act 1, 7 from act 2 and 6 from last act

because because of the limitation of our objectives it was not possible for us to analyze the whole

play. As it allies with theatre of absurd so it clearly seems to be irrational and illogical to make

any sense. Absurd plays are way too opposite from classical and Greek dramas in sense that they

deviate from logical language, reasoning, chronological and linear plot. Esslin Martin, a 20th

century drama critic suggests that “waiting for Godot” doesn’t tell a story but explains a static situation. “Waiting for Godot” is the story of two men, Vladimir and Estragon, waiting for

someone somewhere on road under a tree. During that wait they happen to meet two other

characters, Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is the master of Lucky and is going to sell him in market.

They converse with each other. And boy enters, according to Vladimir he is the messenger of

Godot. Messenger tells them that Godot is not coming today. Lucky and Pozzo leave the

stage.boy comes again and tells them that Godot is not coming tonight but surely he will come

tomorrow. They both keep on waiting and Godot never comes. The plot, story, characters and

setting nothing is like conventional play and drams. In “Waiting for Godot” we see five

Page | 10

characters but without any background information and knowledge. The most prominent element

of this drama which is our main concern is use of language to produce absurdity.

Chapter Three

Data Analysis

In our study, we have selected the absurd forms of language that are the result of deviation from

conversational maxims procedure of data analysis includes identification of deviation, its

categorization and calculation of effects which are result of this deviation from conversational

analysis. When cases or instances of absurd language are identified it becomes easy to categorize

them in terms of principle they disobey. Selection of the pragmatic principles, which is

cooperative principle theory and its four conversational maxims, is done because it is main

building block of conversation. And people, authors, writers, dramatists and poets use flouting or

violation of these four maxims to create absurdity in language.

1. Estragon: and we? * Vladimir: I beg your pardon? Estragon: I said and we?*

Vladimir: I don’t understand. Estragon: where do we come in?* Vladimir: come in? Estragon: take your time. Above mentioned conversation is taken from act 1, line 325-332. Here we see violation of 1maxim of quantity. Here estragon actually meant that from where do we both come in but he

assumed that Vladimir is unable to comprehend his quantitatively insufficient language. I beg

your pardon is the normal reply in a conversation with insufficient information. Again estragon

violates maxim of quantity by repeating same information though Vladimir has hinted that he

didn’t get Estragon meant to ask actually. Because Vladimir doesn’t share a background knowledge with estragon but estragon assumes that Vladimir understands him so he just ignores

his cues about confusion. Thus estragon violates maxim of quantity thrice in this conversation

creating ambiguity and confusion.

2. Estragon: Do you remember the day I throw myself into the Rhone?

Vladimir: We were grape harvesting.**

Estragon: You fished me out.

Vladimir: That's all dead and buried.**

1 *= violation of maxim of quantity

** = violation of maxim of relevance

*** = violation of maxim of manner

Page | 11

In this short conversation, Vladimir violates the maxim of quantity by saying we were grape

harvesting instead of it he should have said yes I do remember that day. In last dialogue we see

violation of maxim of relation when Vladimir says that “that’s all dead and buried.” Instead of

continuing the conversation he finishes it at this dialogue here we can implicate that maybe he is

trying not to remember his past .again here we come across to the ambiguity of language because

of communication gap and we find no co-operation on behalf of Vladimir to convey the exact

message of the character or author.

3. Estragon: (Looking at the tree). What is it?

Vladimir: It’s the tree.*

Estragon: Yes, but what kind?

Vladimir: I don’t know. A willow.

Here again we see Vladimir violating maxim of quantity. Estragon is asking about the

tree’s name or specie but Vladimir just tells that it’s a tree. We can implicate that maybe at first Vladimir doesn’t understand what estragon meant actually but his dialogue created funny situation for a moment in the play.

4. Estragon: [Angrily] use your head, can't you?

Vladimir: You're my only hope.**

In this conversation, Vladimir is unable to answer Estragon's question and by such irrelevant

reply, he tries to avoid the situation. The implicatures arose from flouting the maxim of relation

tell us that maybe Vladimir doesn’t know the answer or maybe he is just trying to indulge

estragon into something to avoid his questioning.

5. Vladimir: Where are your boots?

Estragon: I must have thrown them away.

Vladimir: When

Estragon: I don't know? **

Vladimir: Why?

Estragon: (Exasperated). I don't know why I don't know! **

Vladimir: No, I mean why did you throw them away?

Here again, in this conversation, we see violation of relevance maxim as Estragon utters

ambiguous statements to avoid direct situation of him being stupid. Irrelevant replies imply

absurdity in language causing readers to infer meaning according to their own perceptions.

6. Vladimir: don’t you recognize us? We met yesterday.

Page | 12

Pozzo: I am blind. Estragon: he can see into the future. **

Again here we see Estragon violating maxim of relevance while talking to Vladimir as Pozzo

says he is unable to see so instead of sympathizing with him Estragon thinks of something stupid

creating humorous effect by language.

7. Estragon: In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent. Vladimir: You're right, we're inexhaustible.** Estragon: It's so we won't think. Vladimir: We have that excuse. Estragon: It's so we won't hear. Vladimir: We have our reasons. Estragon: All the dead voices.**

Again we see violation of maxim of relevance and maxim of manner in conversations of both

Estragon and Vladimir. As they both are speaking irrelevant things and without any clarity. This

abrupt language is creating ambiguity in the play.

8. Vladimir: charming evening we’re having.

2Estragon: Unforgettable. **/***

Vladimir: And it’s not over.

Estragon: Apparently not.

Vladimir: It’s only the beginning.

Estragon: It’s awful.*

Here in this conversation we see flouting of maxim of manner and relevance as well quantity.

Here unforgettable is very obscure we are unable to implicate whether he is enjoying or having a

horrible experience. And we are also unable to comprehend a relationship between being

charming and unforgettable because estragon doesn’t provide enough information about to

comprehend meaning.

9. Vladimir: At last! (Estragon gets up and goes towards Vladimir, a boot in each hand. He puts them down at edge of stage, straightens and contemplates the moon.) What are you doing?

2 *= violation of maxim of quantity

** = violation of maxim of relevance

*** = violation of maxim of manner

Page | 13

Estragon: Pale for weariness.**/*** Vladimir : Eh? Estragon: Of climbing heaven and gazing on the likes of us. ** Vladimir: Your boots, what are you doing with your boots?

In this conversation of both interlocutors we see flouting of maxims of relevance and quantity.

At first Estragon ignores Vladimir’s attention than he provides with very less information not

providing Estragon with the sufficient information about what is he is talking. This flouting has

created ambiguity and confusion in the language leaving readers or audience to wonder what

playwright tries to convey through these characters.

10. Estragon: All the dead voices. */*** Vladimir: They make a noise like wings. Estragon: Like leaves. Vladimir: Like sand. Estragon: Like leaves.

11. Estragon: (aphoristic for once) we are all born mad. Some remain so. Vladimir: wouldn't go so far as that. Estragon: No, I mean so far as to assert that I was weak in the head when I came into the world. But that is not the question. Vladimir: We wait. We are bored. (He throws up his hand.) No, don't protest, we are

bored to death, there's no denying it.**

In example which is before the last one we see both characters flouting manner, quantity and

relevance maxim through ambiguous language which readers are unable to comprehend. In last

case, maxim of relevance is flouting creating a humorous effect. Estragon is discussing a very

serious topic but Vladimir just ignores him with his petty problem of being bored. Maybe he

does want to get into serious matters or it’s really his foolish behavior towards worldly matters.

From above listed examples we can assume that apparently there is no reason for characters to

violate or disobey the conversational rules but still it is there. The only purpose of this is to

create humor and absurdity in the language. Because Waiting for Godot is considered as post-

modernist play so postmodernism is characterized with language game and linguistic relativity.

Everyone has his or her own reality and this relative relativity gives space to communication gap.

One is unable to comprehend what others are trying to convey in their utterances.

Page | 14

Statistics:

Type of linguistic frame (cooperative principle

theory)

Number of violation instances

Examples Effect over language

1. Flouting of

relevance

12 (**) 4,5,6,7,8,9,11 Ambiguity and

absurdity

2. Flouting of quantity

6 (*) 1, 3,8,10 Absurdity and

humor

3. Flouting of manner

3 (***) 8,9,10 Confusion and

ambiguity

4. Flouting of quality

_________ ____________ ____________

The most frequently used linguistic frame or strategy is use of “violation of maxim of relevance” in the play to create ambiguity and confusion in the language according to modern

trends. Violation of relevance breaks down the semantic connection in a conversation to make

conversation uncertain and ambiguous which was the aim of playwright. But still conversation

goes on which makes play more absurd because utterances don’t have any connection with each

other to implicate a meaning which is quite contrary to the nature of communication. It

completely doesn’t fulfill purpose of communication. We have selected total 11 short

conversations because it was not possible to analyze whole text. Than second most violated

maxim is of “quantity” which to some extent produces humorous effect in language. And most

little used is the flouting of manner in the play. Hence we can say that Samuel Beckett has used

deviation from pragmatic principles to create humor, ambiguity and absurdity in the play.

Conclusion:

Hence we can cum up our discussion that basic purpose of the communication is to

convey clear, true and relevant massage to make understand others what we actually wanted to

tell them. Pragmatics provides us with conversational rules to fulfill our needs for effective

communication. Meaning doesn’t depend only on apparent structure but on its hidden references

as well. Building block of a conversation are four maxims or rules prescribed by Paul Grice.

Cooperative principle says don’t say less or more than requires, be relevant with the topic, and

Page | 15

always say what is true or have strong grounds. By following these rules we can communicate

effectively but in postmodernist literature with reality, language is also relative. That’s why we see people violating these rules to communicate. Same is the Case with language of “Waiting for Godot”. Characters communicate while they don’t follow conversational rules so result of

that is ambiguity of language. Sometimes it shapes humor and sometimes it reflects absurdity,

moving against the nature of conversation. Most prominent strategy used in play is flouting of

maxim of relevance to give grounds to the absurd and ambiguous language.

Page | 16

Reference List

1. Sayaka Iwata; A Conversation Analysis of Theatrical Discourse

2. Grice, P .'Logic and Conversation'. In P.Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and

Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58 ,1975.

3. Partee , B.H.'Semantics and Pragmatics : Entailments ,

Presuppositions,Conversational and Conventional Implicatures' .2004.3rdSept.2008

<http://people.umass.edu/partee/RGGU_2004/RGGU047.pdf>

4. Conersationl Analysis: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045300452.html

5. Advantage of Ambiguity in Language: sciencedaily <http://phys.org/news/2012-01-

cognitive-scientists-problem-human-language.html

6. Addams, Andy. Grice’s maxims < https://prezi.com/g4-qcq-uewc6/grices-maxims/

1 | P a g e

Page | 1

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh

jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb

nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer

tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas

dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx

cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq

wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio

pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj

klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn

mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf

ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc

vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf

ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc

vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

Edward Said’s style of prose writing

Modern prose assignment

12/21/2015

Edward Said is one of the most widely known, and controversial, intellectuals in the world today.

He is that rare breed of academic critic who is also a vocal public intellectual, having done more

than any other person to place the plight of Palestine before a world audience. His importance as

a cultural theorist has been established in two areas: his foundational place in the growing school

of postcolonial studies, particularly through his book Orientalism; and his insistence on the

importance of the ‘worldliness’ or material contexts of the text and the critic. Issues which have

dominated Edward Said’s work are the struggles with identity, the focus on imperial power and

colonialist discourse, the denunciation of political and cultural oppression, the concerns about the

material conditions of thinking and writing, and the dissatisfaction with dominant models of

literary and cultural theory. Edward Said was born in 1935 and grew up in Cairo, where he went

to school at St George’s, the American School, and later Victoria College, which modelled itself

on the tradition of the elite public schools of Britain. Said’s experience in Cairo was that of a lonely and studious boy, whose father was almost obsessive about the need for discipline in work

and study, and he found escape in reading novels and listening to concerts of classical music

from the BBC every Sunday. Later because of Israeli invasion in Palestine, he has to travel to

Egypt, American and Britain as well. While being in America, he completed his PhD degree in

literature. Said was well on the way to establishing a distinguished but unexciting career as a

Professor of Comparative Literature when the 1967 Arab—Israeli war broke out. According to

him, that moment changed his life. He suddenly found himself in an environment hostile to

Arabs, Arab ideas and Arab nations. He was surrounded by an almost universal support for the

Israelis, where the Arabs seemed to be ‘getting what they deserved’ and where he, a respected academic, had become an outsider and a target. The 1967 war and its reception in America

confronted Said with the paradox of his own position; he could no longer maintain two identities,

and the experience began to be reflected everywhere in his work. The significance of this

transformation in Edward Said’s life lay in the fact that for the first time he began to construct

himself as a Palestinian, consciously articulating the sense of a cultural origin which had been

suppressed since his childhood and diverted into his professional career. Colonization of

Palestine basically compelled Said to examine the imperial discourse of the West, and to weave

his cultural analysis with the text of his own identity. This quest lead Said to path of a critic and

distinguished prose writer of 21st century. His most of the writings are about discourses of

imperialism, Islam, Palestinian colonization by Israel and music, which was of course, his

passion. Said’s style of writing can be studied in thematic analysis of his essays and books.

1. The paradoxical position of critic:

As critic, political commentator, literary and cultural theorist or New York

citizen, Edward Said demonstrates the often paradoxical nature of identity in an increasingly

migratory and globalised world. In him, we find a person located in a tangle of cultural and

theoretical contradictions: contradictions between his Westernized persona and political concern

for his Palestinian homeland; contradictions between his political voice and professional

position; contradictions between the different ways in which he has been read; contradictions in

the way he is located in the academy. The intimate connection between Said’s identity and his

cultural theory, and the paradoxes these reveal, shows us something about the constructedness

and complexity of cultural identity itself. Said is an Arab and a Palestinian, and indeed, a

Christian. Palestinian, which in itself, if not a paradox in an increasingly Islamic Middle East, is

certainly paradoxical in an intellectual who is the most prominent critic of the contemporary

3

Western demonization of Islam. The paradox of Edward Said’s identity is the most strategic feature of his own ‘worldliness’, a feature which provides a key to the interests and convictions

of his cultural theory. This identity is itself a text which is continually elaborated and rewritten

by Said, intersecting with and articulated by all the other texts he writes. Said persistently locates

himself as a person who is dislocated, ‘exiled’ from his homeland. But rather than invent some

essential Palestinian cultural reality, he insists that all cultures are changing constantly, that

culture and identity themselves are processes. Indeed his own cultural identity has been enhanced

rather than diminished by his choice to locate himself in New York. A Palestinian first and an

American second, he has admitted that he could not live anywhere else but in New York. This

says something about the international character of New York, but it also says something about

the nature of Edward Said, about his obsession with location, his fascination with cultural

diversity and heterogeneity, and his advocacy of the intellectual’s detachment from political

structures. Because he has located himself in what he calls an interstitial space, a space in

between a Palestinian colonial past and an American imperial present, he has found himself both

empowered and obliged to speak out for Palestine, to be the voice of the marginalized and the

dispossessed, and, crucially, to present Palestine to the American people. Edward Said has had a

greater effect than perhaps any other intellectual in the formation of the state of Palestine itself.

2. Celebration of Exile:

Said deliberately celebrates exile in his prose. Whatever he writes, we see a

intangible effect of nostalgia and thrust for rootedness, Because of all the trauma and pain of

homelessness he has suffered. This places the exile in a singular position with regard to history

and society, but also in a much more anxious and ambivalent position with regard to culture:

“Exile…is ‘a mind of winter’ in which the pathos of summer and autumn as much as the

potential of spring are nearby but unobtainable. Perhaps this is another way of saying that a

life of exile moves according to a different calendar, and is less seasonal and settled than life

at home. Exile is life led outside habitual order. It is nomadic, decentred, contrapuntal; but no sooner does one get accustomed to it than its unsettling force erupts anew”.

There is also a more interesting dimension to the idea of culture which Said describes as

‘possessing possession. And that is the power of culture by virtue of its elevated or superior

position to authorize, to dominate, to legitimate, emote, interdict and validate’. Culture is ‘a system of values saturating downwards almost everything within its purview; yet paradoxically

culture dominates from above without at the same time being available to everyone and

everything it dominates’

3. Repetition of Ideas and Words:

Another important of Edward Said’s writing is “repetition” of ideas. Repetition

imposes certain constraints upon the interpretation of the text; it historicizes the text as

something which originates in the world, which insists upon its own being. Said’s work

constantly rehearses the features of his own peculiar academic and cultural location, or the ‘text’ of his own life—exile, politicization, the living of two lives, the insistent questions of identity,

and the passionate defense of Palestine. His all essays in one or other way talk about same thing

even he keeps stressing on one thing in one essay. For example his essays like, Islam as news

and Orientalism talk in language of “binary opposition” to undermine the western culture and imperialism and its operation in the entire globe.

4. Writer as Theorist:

Out of the issue of Palestine grows one of the most important themes in Said’s theory—the role of the intellectual. From the position of a professional literary theorist

established in the elite academic environment of Columbia University, Said has been required to

adopt the role of a spokesperson, called out to talk about political issues for which he had no

specialist qualifications. This confirmed his belief in the value of amateurism, but much more

than that it gave him a vision of the importance of exile in empowering the intellectual to be

detached from partisan politics in order to ‘speak truth to power’. The sense of ‘not-belonging’ has confirmed his own sense that the public intellectual needs to speak from the margin, to

distance him- or herself from orthodox opinion and say things which are denied those locked into

partisan and specialist discourses. It’s his unique characteristic of being a prose writer who

invents new positions and roles for a writer than just being a critic. Edward Said is often

considered to be the originator of colonial discourse theory, a form of theoretical investigation

which, when taken up by Homi K.Bhabha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, became sometimes

erroneously regarded as synonymous with ‘post-colonial theory’.

5. Interrogative introduction:

The style of Said seems to be discursive, conversational and even repetitive, but

his writings are quite thought provoking. The most striking feature of his essays is that he begins

his essay with a question like statement to set a course of discussion in the, mind of reader. In

Representations of the Intellectual, while discussing the role of an intellectual Said poses an

important questioning the beginning: how far should an intellectual go in getting involved? Is it

possible to join a party or faction and retain a semblance of independence? This question asking

style has positioned Said’s writings at a unique height of literary canon.

6. Illusions; The novel and the empire:

In Said’s writing while talking about relation between imperialism,

colonization and culture we come across references of different Victorian novels in order to

understand the underlined imperialist ideologies. In Said’s writing novels are not the ones which

‘caused’ imperialism, but that the novel is the cultural artefact of bourgeois society. So according

to him novels and imperialism are unthinkable without each other. So illusions of previous

time’s fiction is very striking feature of Said’s writings.

7. Musicality of text:

Edward Said was a music lover and a musician himself. Said was fascinated by

the connection between memory and music, by how remembrances of things played, as he once

put it, are enacted. Music for Said was inspiring. When he played Schubert's Fantasie in a film

about him directed by Salem Brahimi (the film, shot in late 2002, was titled Selves and Others: A

Portrait of Edward Said), his face quivered with every note that his hands transposed on the

keyboard. Indeed, Said would always make connections and references to Palestine, even in his

more esoteric essays about literature, theory, or music. Fantasie might also have served as a kind

of premonition for Said that it would be his swansong.his passion for music always made him to

feel nostalgic about his past and homeland. Even in his text structure we see a very smooth

pattern making his writing bit musical.

8. Coining new Terms:

5

Said is very famous for a unique style of writing which is coning or inverting new terms and words. His

two famous coined terms are Orientalism and contrapuntal. Orientalism i Said s formulation is principally

a way of defining a d lo ati g Europe s others. But as a group of related dis ipli es Orientalism was, in

important ways, about Europe itself, and hinged on arguments that circulated around the issue of

national distinctiveness, and racial and linguistic origins. While a contrapuntal reading allows us to see

the operation of imperialism in particular texts, it also opens up the almost total interrelation between

cultural and political practices in global imperialism. A contrapuntal reading interferes with those

appare tl sta le a d i per ea le ategories fou ded o ge re, periodizatio , atio alit or st le

categories which presume that Western culture is entirely independent of other ultures a d of the worldly pursuits of power, authority, and privilege. The usefulness of contrapuntal reading lies in its

ability to reveal a, te t s reliance on, and endorsement of, the political structures and institutions of

imperialism through clues that might otherwise go undetected. Specifically, contrapuntal analysis,

developed by Edward W. Said, is used in interpreting colonial texts, considering the perspectives

of both the colonizer and the colonized. This approach is not only helpful but also necessary in

making important connections in a novel. If one does not read with the right background, one

may miss the weight behind the presence of Antigua in Mansfield Park, Australia in Great

Expectations, or India in Vanity Fair. Interpreting contrapuntally is interpreting different

perspectives simultaneously and seeing how the text interacts with itself as well as with historical

or biographical contexts. It is reading with "awareness both of the metropolitan history that is

narrated and of those other histories against which (and together with which) the dominating

discourse acts". Since what isn't said may be as important as what is said, it is important to read

with an understanding of small plot lines, or even phrases. Contrapuntal reading means reading a

text "with an understanding of what is involved when an author shows, for instance, that a

colonial sugar plantation is seen as important to the process of maintaining a particular style of

life in England". Contrapuntal reading takes in both accounts of an issue; it addresses both the

perspective of imperialism and the resistance to it.

Hence we can conclude that Edward said is different from all other prose writers in sense of

content and text. The concepts which he deals with are not discussed by any other prose writer.

He is not only a critic but a socialist and a reformer as well. By dealing with sensitive issues like

colonization, imperialism and trying to counter the Islamophobia presented by west, he more

focuses on themes. His most prominent stylistic features are use of illusion and word formation

(coining of new terms). Said keeps focusing on themes like imperialism, colonization, western

biasness about Islam in his essays.