Explore how Friel uses language Essay

Explore how Friel has used language in order to create humour and other emotional responses in the audience? Focus particularly on the exchange between Yolland and Marie in Act 2 scene 2. In this essay I intend to explore the relationship between Marie and Yolland. I want to examine how the overall structure of the language presents a comical piece for the audience to watch and discover how the couple overcome the language barrier to connect on a much deeper level. I would also like to look at how they convey their emotions without verbal understanding. Then finally I would like to look at the way in which Friel provokes emotional responses in the audience. In a short play like Translations, the focus of the drama is on ever changing relationships demonstrated through language and conversation. If we study the relationship between Yolland and Marie and focus on their characters we find how different and individual they each are. The couple, prove to be direct opposites of one another. Yolland is an English soldier who has a romantic outlook on the world, whereas Maire is an Irish milkmaid who has a pragmatic view of the world. Yet both are similar in many ways, they both have hopes, dreams and fears. If we refer to the previous meeting between the couple (End of Act 2 Scene 1 from p58) we find the section where Maire and Yolland first ‘talk’ to each other. This demonstrates the difficulties faced when attempting to talk to someone from another culture. We know they are speaking in different languages and are confused by what the other is saying, whilst Owen is tries to act as an go-between and translator for them. After Act 2 Scene 1, the couple are next seen together, after the dance, trying to talk to each other. This scene is a intensely emotional love scene between the couple and is also a exquisite examination of the barriers between language and communication. The scene opens with the couple, running hand in hand and Marie exclaiming ‘O my God, that leap across the ditch nearly killed me’ and Yolland replies with ‘I could scarcely keep up with you. ‘ So that when the couple first speak, the dialogue is so highly skilled and the syntax is so well structured that it appears to the audience that they understand one another. The opposite is in fact true yet they seem to be making perfect sense. This creates a sense of confusion for the audience as we know, verbally they have little understanding of each other’s language. As the scene progresses Marie and Yolland realise their embarrassment. Before each speaks again their hands disengage and they study one another. Then follows a pause. This displays the hesitancy and the discomfort that the couple are feeling. Each is unsure of what the other is saying yet the following lines say exactly the same things in two completely different languages. Their lines intertwine and the responses are infact an illusion created by the lyrical poise and exact parallel balance. The couples’ observations are also based on very different realities, an example being Marie saying ‘The grass must be wet. My feet are soaking’ and Yolland retorting with ‘Your feet must be wet. The grass is soaking. ‘ Here if we look at the grammar, we know these lines mirror one another and we see how the playwright has developed this by just simply rearranging the subject and predicate to create this syntactic parallel equivalence. This humour is present throughout and this romantic exchange lightens what is quite a serious, political play. However the two characters are both symbols for two different cultures and apart from the language barrier they are divided by underlying conflict. In my opinion this also draws them together. What follows from here between them bears a striking resemblance to the discourse between Manus and Sarah in the opening act. They start with their names ‘George’ (Yolland) ‘Lieutant George. ‘ (Marie) They use basic and simple language and I feel this is done as the playwright is trying to provoke a sympathetic response from the audience. As with Manus and Sarah, the dialogue is drawn out, slow, yet humouress. Yet is also a display of tenderness and affection and is a way of making themselves known. This relates to the overall theme of identity within the play. If we look at the grammar we find again it is makes use of broken grammar, fragmented sentences and short turn taking roles. Together this creates tension in the audience. Friel makes use of this simple language again later on in the scene with the use of ‘water’, ‘earth’ and ‘fire’ after Maire tries to communicate in Latin. It is after both Yolland and Maire both confess – ‘Say anything at all. I love the sound of your speech’ and when they both end their unsuccessful attempting at communicating with an exasperated ‘Oh my god’, it becomes clear just how close a bond the two have begun to form. It is from here that the notion of non-verbal communication is effective. The splendour of this scene lies in the fact that, however meaningless words many be, body language and emotions are universal and can bridge the language barrier. Each becomes increasingly frustrated with their inability to communicate. As they do attempt to ‘talk’ there is plenty of confusion and misinterpretation within the conversation. An example being the plentiful use of what-what? Sorry-sorry? Just as in the previous scene. These two uncomplicated lines also bring about comic and compassion within the audience. Although the difference in this scene is that they have dispensed with Owen.