A Stylistic Approach to Power Relation Shifts in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

نوع المستند : المقالة الأصلية

المؤلف

English Department, Faculty of Arts, Port Said University, Egypt

المستخلص

The present paper tackles the concept of power relations and surveys some of the specific techniques, in which power relations are represented in the language of two major characters in Arthur Millers’ The Crucible. The researcher adopts Brown and Levinson’s (1978) Politeness theory and Culpeper’s (2011) Impoliteness to contrast the language of the two major characters, namely, John Proctor and Mary Warren. The objective of the study is to highlight how the two theories contrast each other and how they can be used to manifest the power embodied in the use of language. The study highlights how the characters in the text world gain power over their superordinate by examining their language that signifies social and religious power.
تتناول هذه الورقة مفهوم علاقات القوة کما تستعرض بعض التقنيات المحددة  التي تعکس علاقات القوة في لغة شخصيتين رئيسيتين في مسرحية البوتقة لآرثر ميلر. يتبنى الباحث نظرية التأدب لبراون وليفينسون (1978) واللاتأدب لکولبيبر (2011) لمقارنة لغة الشخصيتين الرئيسيتين، وهما جون بروکتور وماري وارين. الهدف من الدراسة هو إبراز کيف تتباين النظريتان مع بعضهما البعض وکيف يمکن استخدامهما لإظهار علاقة القوة متجسدة في استخدام اللغة. تسلط الدراسة الضوء على کيف تکتسب الشخصيات في عالم النص القوة على مرؤوسيهم من خلال تحليل لغتهم التي تعکس القوة الاجتماعية والدينية.

الكلمات الرئيسية

الموضوعات الرئيسية

المراجع

Aziz, A. G., & Qunayeer, H. S. (2014). Social hysteria vs individual dilemma: A pragmatic study of character relationship in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. European Scientific Journal, 238-256. Retrieved from https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/4874
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Some universals in language usage. (J. Gumperz, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 349 - 367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. New York: Cambridge University press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
Culpeper, J. (2013). Impoliteness. Handbook of Pragmatics, 1-18.
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. (D. Z. Michael Haugh, Ed.) London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7
Eelen, G. (1999). Politeness and ideology: A critical review. International Pragmatics Association, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.09eel
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome. https://doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2015.43016
Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose knowledge? New York: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501712951
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: HARPER & ROW. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051
Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001  
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power: A history of power from the beginning to AD (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570896
McGill, W. (1981). The Crucible of History: Arthur Miller's John Proctor. The New England Quarterly, 54(2), 258-264. https://doi.org/10.2307/364974
Mesthrie, R. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of Sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997068
Miller, A. (2002). The Crucible. Boston, Massachusetts: McDougal Littell, a division of Houghton. https://www.worldcat.org/title/crucible-and-related-readings/oclc/244150244
Mohammed, H. N., & Abbas, N. F. (2015, December). Pragmatics of impoliteness and rudeness. American International Journal of Social Science, 195-205. http://www.aijssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_6_December_2015/24.pdf
Mulyanto, M., Setiawan, S., & Kurnia, F. D. (2019). Pragmatic analysis of the dialogues in Arthur Miller’s drama “The Crucible”. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 61, 55-67. doi:10.7176/JLLL/61-06
Pable, A. (2007). The construction of a period dialect: The language of Arthur Miller's The Crucible and its sources. Trier: WVT, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Thorpe, C., Yuill, C., Hobbs, M., Todd, M., Tomely, S., & Weeks, M. (2015). The sociology book: big ideas simply explained. New York: Dorling Kindersley LTD. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010387024
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7 ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://www.worldcat.org/title/introduction-to-sociolinguistics/oclc/885027160
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2001). Power in practice: Adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc. https://doi.org/10.21225/D5X60J
مجلة کلية الآداب .جامعة بورسعيد
المجلد 21، العدد 21 - الرقم المسلسل للعدد 21
(يوليو-الجزء الثالث)
يوليو 2022
الصفحة 22-40

ملفات

شارك

إرسال الاستشهاد إلى

الإحصائيات