Language & state of chaos Essay

The lexical choices frantice by Beckett in the first act show many things, such as the family relationship between tarragon and Vladimir, and the admiration of the characters as to the time and the core of their actions. The main characters, tarragon and Vladimir, switch roles continu bothy, so not using spoken spoken communication as an expression of their selves, in that respectfore the lyric poem used show no label of identity. This shows interchangeability in the characters, so keeping the audience searching for the characters get distinctive personality.This role switching that not even the characters roles/ personalities ar certain. This astonishment is increased with the characters inclination to talk in contiguity pairs like they are both speaking from the same train of thought To say that the speech communication is in a assert of chaos suggests at that place is utter confusion in the bring in, the audience toilette hear and understand the individual co nditions being said, but cannot put them into a relevant context or meaning.This chaos is seen frequently throughout Vladimir and estragons confabulations although taking turns with hotshot another bandage speaking, they do not engage in a conventional conversation, one character talks about one topic, while the other talks about a different subject all told together. The first flash I have chosen reflects this chaotic language the two characters talk about the bible, beginning in conventional adjacency pairs, Vladimir Did you ever read the bible? Estragon The bibleI mustiness have looked at it but then the conversation starts to waver on Estragons part Vladimir Do you remember the story? Estragon No. Vladimir Shall I tell it to you? Estragon No. And finally, the language and conversation between the two becomes chaotic Estragon Saved form what? Vladimir Hell. Estragon Im expiry. This deterioration in the exchanges between the two characters shows the trifle of th em both they seem to squabble about anything, no matter how unmindful it seems to the audience.This can be seen as due to the lack of meaning or activity in their lives, with them using any method of keeping ennui at bay. This interaction between the two characters shows their abuse of Grices truism of relevance, as one characters speech holds no relevance to that of the others. In this moment in the bleed there is a lot of uncertainty for both the characters and the audience, which Beckett creates mainly via the language used by the two main protagonists. The characters are unsure about what the other is public lecture about, Estragon Who? Vladimir What? Estragon Whats all this about? , and they are in like manner uncertain of what really happens in the bible, Vladimir But all four were there why believe him rather than the others? The audience is made uncertain of the meaning of the characters talking about the bible, it is near the start of the play so they do not know wh at is to come. My second moment is different form my first as Estragon and Vladimir are now join by two passing characters, Pozzo and Lucky, although Lucky does not speak public treasury later on in their meeting.Pozzo speaks of how much pressure Lucky, his knook, puts on him, this is all an act on his part, but Estragon and Vladimir believe him, they repeat Pozzos words to add definition and to show their feelings of sadness towards him, Pozzo Its alarming he must go Im going mad I cant bear it any longer Vladimir He cant bear it. Estragon Any longer. Vladimir Hes going mad. Estragon Its terrible. This makes Estragon and Vladimir look rather naive as they believe Pozzo straight away and accuse Lucky of crucifying Pozzo, but are then told by Pozzo that he was lying.Estragon and Vladimirs language in this moment is still chaotic, repeating themselves and each other, and showing confusion at what each other said, using the word what several times as a response. Their adjacency pairs are jarred and do not seem to lodge together, Vladimir I dont think so Estragon What? Vladimir I dont know Estragon Ask him. They then go on to talk mundanely about the evening, which turns into babblings of irrelevant words, Vladimir Worse than the pantomime. Estragon The circus Vladimir The music-hall. Estragon The circus This is an example of their words and thoughts reflecting a case-by-case unit, as if it were just one person speaking, showing their relationship to be so close they are starting to think alike. This chaotic language to a fault reflects the uncertainty theme, which runs through the play, shown through the characters lexis and actions (seen in the secondary text). This chaos is shown when Pozzo appears to have lost his pipe, Estragon says Hes a scream. Hes lost his dudeen. This is a word coined by Beckett which does not seem to have any meaning, showing how Beckett uses language to fog the audience, as it seems slightly ridiculous how Estragon makes up a word purely to rhyme with scream. The chaotic language in the play seems mainly on a humorous level, for example, in the second moment chosen Vladimir rushes off to relieve himself, while doing this Estragon shouts end of corridor on the left-hand(a), even though both the characters and audience are assured they are in the middle of nowhere with just a tree.both of the moments chosen show language to be in a state of chaos, thus supporting the opinion that nothing is certain in the play, although there are certain factors that make this statement debatable which should be taken into account, for example, Vladimir and Estragons relationship, they have known each other for a long time as they share memories etc. It can also be said that the certainty of some topics in the play is left up to the audience to understand, through the situation and the characters.