<
>
Download

Seminararbeit
Englisch

Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz - KFU

1, Trockner, 2015

Lea H. ©
7.40

0.17 Mb
sternsternsternsternstern
ID# 66771







Forms and Functions of the Irish Language in
Brian Friel’s Translations




Proseminararbeit
British Cultural Studies (Constructing Irish Cultural and Political Identities: The Literary Revival and Beyond)
Submitted by

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction 3
2. English and Irish as the languages of the play .3

3. Characters’ attitudes towards the languages .5
3.1 Maire
3.2 Yolland
3.3 Owen


4.Names and language as an expression of identity .7
4.1 Sarah
4.2 Owen
4.3 Angicisation of place-names
4.4 Irish as a signifier of tradition and identity


5. Translations as a metaphor for the language shift in the 19th century .11

6. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………12
7. Bibliography . 13



1. Introduction
With Brian Friel being one of Ireland’s most remarkable playwrights of the 20th century, his play Translations has become widely acclaimed as one of the most important works of Irish literature (cf. Deane 1984: 20). The reason for that is of course that the three-act play addresses a variety of issues, some of which are still relevant nowadays, which have been very important to Ireland and its nation in the past.

The consequences of these have permanently influenced Ireland’s history and have shaped it into the country it is today.
Brian Friel claims that Translations is “a play about language and only about language” which is why this paper focuses on the effects of the languages used in the play, the treatment of languages and its effects in the world of the play, as well as the relevance of the changes brought upon by he British rule for Ireland (Friel 1999: 75).

However, it must be mentioned that Translations does not only deal with language but with historical and political events. Even though the play is primarily a statement on the language shift from Irish to English the 19th century, it also introduces various issues that are of great importance for Ireland’s history and national identity, such as the potato blight, emigration to America, the introduction of a compulsory education system and cultural imperialism.
The first chapter of this paper will explore the languages spoken in the play, the focus being in English and Irish since the conflict between those two provides the basis for the storyline.

The second chapter focuses on the characters’ attitudes towards the languages and their reasoning behind it. In the third chapter the correlation between names, language and expression of identity is discussed. Finally, the final chapter is giving a very short insight into why the events in the fictional town of Baile Beag in Friels’s play are representative of the changes happening in Ireland at the time the play is set.

2. English and Irish as the languages of the play
In the play Translations several different languages are used and discussed. While Translations focuses of course on the discrepancy between the native tongue of Ireland and the language forced upon by the English, the ancient languages Latin and Greek are also used in the play beside that. Most notable is of course that this play, which addresses the demise of the Irish language, is itself not written in Irish nor does it contain any Irish phrases apart of from names and place-names.

However, it is one of the most remarkable features about this play that despite this the audience still has the impression of two different languages being spoken on stage (cf. Richtarik 1994: 554). In the text it is achieved through either explicitly mentioning it in the dialogue, the contrasting of characters who are supposedly speaking different languages, whereas in the stage performance the cast can also make use of distinct accents.
The first moment through which the audience is alerted that the language spoken on stage should in fact be perceived as Irish is during the first act when Maire delivers milk to the hedge school and in a conversation with Jimmy Jack Cassie briefly laments how she wishes she spoke English. (MAIRE: That’s the height of my Latin.

Fit me better if I had even that much English. (T I: 15) When she then consequently presents Jimmy the few English words she had learnt from her aunt, she says them with a strange accent (Her accent is strange because she is speaking a foreign language and because she does not understand what she is saying. (T I: 25/26)). In this moment it is therefore not only explicitly remarked by the characters that the language they are speaking in the world of the play is not English, her unfamiliarity with the language is also highlighted through her awkward pronunciation.

There can be many more moments found throughout the play where characters explicitly mention their lack of understanding of either the English or Irish language.
Other scenes that emphasise the supposed dichotomy of Irish and English are the ones where Irish characters interact with the English. The first instance of this is when Lieutenant Yolland and Lancey enter the hedge school to introduce themselves and their enterprise of the Ordinance Survey and assigning English names to the already existing Irish ones.

Because Lancey and Yolland do not speak any Irish, Owen, one of the few characters able to speak both languages, steps in to act as an interpreter between the English strangers and the villagefolk. (LANCEY: […] Do they speak any English, Roland? OWEN: Don’t worry, I’ll translate. (T I: 30)) The audience can of course understand both parties but through Owen’s paraphrasing of Lancey’s statements the effect of a real translation happening on stage is achieved.
One more device of simulating two different languages on stage is the use of contrasting regional accents.

Even though this is not mentioned in the original text, it was deployed in the first production of the play by the Field Day Theatre Company in 1980 (cf. O’Brien 1989: 102). Friel himself and Stephen Rea, who founded the Field Day Theatre Company together, cast actors of predominantly Ulster origins with native accents such as Liam Neeson and Brenda Scallon to portray the Irish villagers whereas Captain Lancey was portrayed by the English actor David Heap (cf.

Morash 2002: 549). Through this clever casting choice the contrast of English and Irish characters was amplified for the audience.
3. Characters’ attitudes towards the languages
In Translations the characters display very different attitudes towards the Irish and the English language. How positive or negative they are is of course influenced by their opinion on the characters speaking the languages, their own countries of origin and the personal significance they bear for them.

She states how it is of personal significance for her to be able to speak it because she has plans to move to America. Furthermore, she uses a quote by Dan O’Connell, an Irish political leader who despite campaigning for the Catholic Emancipation and against the Act of Union, encouraged the Irish to learn English, to support her statement (cf. O’Brien 1989: 104; cf.

Tuathaigh 2005: 44).


MAIRE: We should all be learning to speak English. That’s what my mother says. That’s what I say. That’s what Dan O’Connell said last month in Ennis. He said the sooner we all learn to speak English the better. […] I’m talking about the Liberator, Master, as you well know. And what he said was this: ‘The old language is a barrier to modern progress.’ He said that last month.

And he’s right. I don’t want Greek. I don’t want Latin. I want English. […] I want to be able to speak English because I’m going to America as soon as the harvest’s all saved. (T I: 25/26)


Later on in the play, as Maire becomes closer to Yolland, she gains another reason to learn English. Because they have no shared language it is impossible for them to hold a conversation without the help of Owen as a translator which becomes particularly evident in the second scene of Act II. During their love scene Maire and Yolland try their hardest to express their feelings for another but without the basis of a shared language it becomes a frustrating moment of miscommunication for them (YOLLAND: I wish to God you could understand me. (T II/2: 52)).

Their “communication collapses since there is no shared context and no agreed code” (Dantanus 1985: 175). Ironically, they even fail to convey their willingness of living in each other’s respective home countries. (YOLLAND: I would tell you how I want to be here- to live here- always-with you-always, always. […] I am not going to leave here. […] MAIRE: Take me away with you, George. (T II/2: 52))
3.2 Yolland
Yolland’s inclination to learn Irish stems from two principles.

I’ve fallen in love with it already. […] I know that I’m going to be happy, very happy here. […] OWEN: He is already a committed Hibernophile (T I: 32)). Over the course of the play he adopts a more and more romanticised view of the country which makes his motivation to learn the native language of the country grow even more. (YOLLAND: Do you think I could live here? […] It’s really heavenly.[…]OWEN: Don’t be such a bloody romantic!) However, Yolland is aware that simply learning the language will not make him part of the community in Baile Beag.

He experiences hostitlity from some of the townspeople (YOLLAND: Some people here resent us. […] I was passing a little girl yesterday and she spat at me. (T II.1: 37)) and he recognises that even if he learns the language he will still lack the collective memory and tradition the people in Baile Beag share. (YOLLAND: Even if I did speak Irish I’d always be an outsider here, wouldn’t I? I may learn the password but the language of the tribe will always elude me, won’t it? The private core will always be… hermetic, won’t it? (T II.1: 40)) Later on in the play he falls in love with Maire and his frustrating inability to communicate with her becomes another incentive for him to learn the language.
3.3 Owen
At the beginning of the play Owen does not hold the Irish language in very high esteem.

In his mind it is outdated and does not hold much significance apart from some slight sentimental value. He even seems to think more highly of the English language, associating it with modernity progress. (OWEN: […]My job is to translate the quaint archaic tongue you people persist in speaking into the King’s good English. (T I: 29)) Contrary to his brother Manus Owen readily adapts to the strangers, willingly speaks English to them and encourages his brother to do the same. (OWEN: Can’t you speak English before your man? MANUS: Why? OWEN: Out of courtesy. (T II.1: 36/37); OWEN: […] Come on, man speak in English.

The theme identity being bound to names and language runs through the entire play right from the very first lines on different levels.
4.1 Sarah
The play opens with Manus helping Sarah overcome her lifelong speech impediment by teaching her to say her name. (MANUS: Get your tongue and your lips working. SARHA: My name MANUS: Come on. One more try. SARAH: My name is MANUS: Good girl. (T I: 12)) When Sarah finally manages to state her name Manus is elated (MANUS: […] Now we’re really started! Nothing’ll stop us now! Nothing in the whole wide world! (T I: 12)).

Through this simple speech act Sarah is now able to express her own identity without relying on someone else for it which provides her with a sense of agency (cf. Dantanus 1985: 177). Towards the very end of the play this agency is stripped from her once again. In Act III when Lancey asks her for her name she is unable to respond (LANCEY: […] Pointing to SARAH) Who are you? Name! SARAH’S mouth opens and shuts, opens and shuts.

Her face becomes contorted. What’s your name? Again SARAH tries frantically. OWEN: Go on, Sarah. You can tell him. But SARAH cannot. And she knows she cannot. (T III: 62)). The autonomy she had gained through the expression of her name is taken away by Lancey through is intimidating practices. This is of course symbolic for the act of taking away the Irish language from the villagers on a larger scale.


Another character who grapples with the expression of his name is Owen. Due to Yolland’s inability to understand and pronounce Irish he is convinced that his friend is called Roland. Owen holds the belief that this error is not of any significance and does not correct Yolland at first.

(MANUS: And they call you Roland! They both call you Roland! OWEN: Shhhhh. Isn’t it ridiculous? They seemed to get it wrong from the very beginning or else they can’t pronounce Owen. […] Easy, man, easy. Owen Roland what the hell. It’s only a name. It’s the same Owen. (T I: 33))


In the exchange between Owen and Manus it comes to light that Owen does in fact not attribute any deeper symbolic meaning to names. “His assumption that reality exists independently of the language that names it also has a significance that Owen does not confront (O’Brien 1989: 105). Only in the first scene of Act II Owen starts to become displeased with Yolland’s repeated error and calls attention to his mistake (OWEN: (Explodes) George! For God’s sake! My name is not Roland! YOLLAND: What? OWEN: (Softly) My name is Owen. (T II.1: 44)).

OWEN: A perfect congruence with its reality. (T II.1: 45))

4.3 Anglicisation of Irish place-names
The most notable part of Translations addressing the topic of names is of course Yolland and Owen’s mission for the Ordinance Survey to translate or anglicise the existing Irish names for the creation of a cohesive map of the British empire. The characters have different opinions on the undertaking at first but over the course of the play it becomes clear to all of them that the replacement of the original names could in fact be of negative influence.
Yolland does not feel very positive about their mission, not only because he is personally fond of the Irish names, but because he is aware of the cultural erasure happening through the renamings.

YOLLAND: I am not sure, But I’m concerned about my part in it. It’s an eviction of sorts. OWEN: We’re making a six inch map of the country. Is there something sinister in that? YOLLAND: Not in… OWEN: And we’re taking place-names that are riddled with confusion and…. YOLLAND: Who’s confused? Are the people confused? OWEN: …and we’re standardising those names as accurately and as sensitively as we can.


Owen on the other hand has no qualms about doing this work for Lancey at first. He willingly accepts the change for the benefit of practicality, and does not even question what the effects of their mission might be. As mentioned earlier, similar to the instance of him not disputing Yolland when he calls him Roland, he is simply unaware yet of the deeper meaning of language and that changing the place-names would mean a loss of tradition and identity.

However, through the conversation with Yolland he starts to become more inclined to go back to the original place-names (OWEN: […] The original’s Saint Muranus. Don’t you think we should go back to that? (T III: 54)). In the end Owen realises how the operation was a fallacy. (OWEN: I’ll take that. (In apology.) It’s only a catalogue of names. HUGH: I know what it is. OWEN: A mistake my mistake nothing to do with us. (T III: 66)) After Lancey’s threat of destroying Baile Beag Owen sees that he should have stood by the traditional names to defend Baile Beag’s autonomy and identity against being overtaken by the English influence (cf.

I’m afraid we’re not familiar with your literature, Lieutenant. We feel closer to the warm Mediterranean. (T II.1: 41))
Furthermore, Hugh connects the Ireland’s history of struggle to its language tradition. He suggests that Irish draws a “contrast between linguistic and imaginary wealth and material wealth that seems accepted as part of the Irish consciousness” in its language and literature (Dantanus 1985: 178).


HUGH: Indeed, Lieutenant. A rich language. A rich literature. You’ll find, sir, that certain cultures expend on their vocabularies and syntax acquisitive energies and ostentations entirely lacking in their material lives. I suppose you could call us spiritual people. […] Yes it is a rich language, Lieutenant, full of the mythologies of fantasy and hope and self-deception a syntax opulent with tomorrows.

It is our response to mud cabins and a diet of potatoes; our only method of replying to… inevitabilities. (T II.1: 42)


With his understanding of language as a cultural signifier he is also the only character from Baile Beag who is wary of the Ordinance Survey’s consequences and “seems to recognise most clearly the changes going on around him” (O’Brien 1989: 107). In the first scene, when Maire brings up her wish to learn English, Hugh does not react and just ignore her request.

By stating “that it is not the literal past, the ‘facts’ of history that shape us, but images of the past embodied in language” (T III: 66) Hugh suggests that a people’s language is of higher importance for their identity than their actual history. However, he recognises that language is dynamic and can change to adapt to developments, that it even has to do that to allow progress. (HUGH: B- we must never cease renewing those images; because once we do, we fossilise. (T III: 66))

5. Translations as a metaphor for the language shift in the 19th century


Friel’s play is not only interesting with regard to the writing and plotline, but what makes it stand out is its historical dimension and accurate depiction of the circumstances of the 19th century in Ireland concerning education and map making. With Translation being at first set out to be a dramatization of A Paper Landscape by J.H. Andrews, a historical publication on the Ordinance Survey from 1975, the high historical accuracy comes as no surprise (cf.

The control over education and map making enabled The British government to inhibit the spread of the Irish language and slowly replace it with English. Spreading the English language was not the main point however, but it was used as the vehicle through which cultural influences penetrated Ireland. What O’Brien states about the fictional town of Baile Beag also holds truth for what happened to the real towns and villages in Ireland:


The fact that it has been deemed necessary by the powers that be to change place-names defines the arbitrary but incontrovertible power of those powers. […] Language does not merely exist as a self-contained linguistic enterprise. It exists, as a network of cultural encodings, a tissue of interrelated meanings and of cognitive assumptions made on the basis of acquaintance with those names.

To change names, thus, is to replace those assumptions and, in the case in point, to speak of the townland of Ballybeg not merely in terms of hill and stream but in terms of control, such as law, property, taxation and the like. (1989: 105/106)



6. Conclusion
With Translations Brian Friel has made a concise statement on the language policies of the 19th century in Ireland. Furthermore, he also touches upon some very relevant issues of Ireland’s history that are still present in the collective memory of the Irish nation today.
The methods with which the impression of two languages being spoken on stage are achieved are impressive and are a unique feature of the play.

More importantly though, Friel has managed to address the language shift in Ireland while also demonstrating the reasons why they are problematic. By having the characters display different attitudes towards the languages and allowing them to change their opinions, the viewers also get to experience their change of perspective and gain a more complex understanding of the issue.

The audience is made aware of the crucial connection between language and identity.
Through this fictional story Friel illustrates a real problem of Ireland in the 19th century. Translations shows how introducing English to Ireland was not just a question of language but a political move to strengthen the British rule over Ireland. Since Ireland is still suffering the consequences of these policies today it is no surprise that Translations is still very popular in Ireland, as well as in other countries who have suffered from similar forms of language oppression.





| | | | |
Tausche dein Hausarbeiten