214151 – Analysis of the representation of the

214151 – Analysis of the representation of the Mancunian assortment of English in the film ‘Naked ‘ .This essay will concentrate on two scenes in Mike Leigh’s movie Naked, and analyse the Mancunian assortment of the English linguistic communication as it appears in the movie. It is of import to observe that what is being analysed is non the Mancunian assortment of English as it is really spoken, but its representation in this movie. A movie scriptwriter’s word picture of duologue which takes topographic point in regional idiom may accurately stand for the speech patterns of that part, peculiarly if the histrions happen to talk with those speech patterns, but the of import point is that being a movie book, it is a work of fiction, and so the representation of the idiom in the movie should non be taken as true to life any more than the duologue should be taken as a representation of a existent, recorded conversation.

Real conversations seldom sound the manner they do in dramas or movies, and lack the stringency of written duologue. In order to properly gaining control the kernel and foibles of the Mancunian assortment of English, it would be necessary to enter and accurately transcribe a existent conversation in which at least one talker is Mancunian. The transcript in peculiar would bear small resemblance to a movie book, and would probably incorporate all the ‘umms’ , ‘ahhs’ and broken and unfinished sentences which pepper and characterise self-generated address in mundane conversation.Before continuing farther, it would be helpful to possibly supply a clear definition of precisely what is meant by the phrase ‘variety of English’ , or so any other linguistic communication.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

A assortment of a linguistic communication is “a signifier that differs from other signifiers of the linguistic communication consistently and coherently.” hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Variety- ( linguistics )There are several different signifiers of linguistic communication assortment including idioms ( geographically defined assortment ) sociolects ( socially defined assortment ) standardised ( standardised for academic usage and in addresss ) and ethnolects ( assortment of linguistic communication defined by cultural group ) . The type of assortment of English this essay will analyze is dialect – a assortment which is defined by geographics, in this instance, the assortment spoken in Manchester in the North of England.In the scenes between Johnny and Sophie, we can pull interesting comparings as Sophie has what might be described as a London speech pattern, in contrast to Johnny’s strong Mancunian speech pattern. We can see ( and hear ) both differences and similarities in the manner Johnny and Sophie speak.

One peculiarly noticeable feature of the Mancunian assortment of English, as represented by Johnny ( played by David Thewliss ) in the movie is the dropping of the missive ‘h’ in his address, at the beginning of words – normally spoken words such as him, her, his, hers, had, have, here.What is interesting, nevertheless, is that Sophie, although she speaks in a different speech pattern or idiom, likely best characterised as a Londoner/cockney speech pattern, does precisely the same herself. One illustration demoing this commonalty is this exchange, which takes topographic point in the scene where Sophie is sitting on a floor shock absorber and speaking to Johnny who is sitting nearby in an armchair.Sophie: “I dunno… I don’t know ‘er every bit good as you.”Rebel: “D’you acquire on with ‘er? ”The morphing of the words ‘do’ and ‘you’ into one syllable as Johnny speaks it ; represented as ‘d’you’ in the screenplay ( above ) , it sounds more like the word ‘jew’ as it is spoken. Like Sophie’s address, the divergence of Johnny’s spoken assortment of English from standard English is by and large marked by the shortening of words by skip of letters as they are heard in address, skip of syllables, or the meeting of two words into one as in the above illustration. This is common across most idioms, as insouciant usage of spoken linguistic communication tends to germinate towards economic system, cut downing the attempt and clip needed to talk and convey a message. It is of import that these assortments are really heard as opposed to read.

A individual who speaks, for illustration, a Mancunian idiom, is still likely to compose in standard English. It is merely phonic written text which allows us to decently analyze the foibles, characteristics and assortments within idioms when written, as has been done in the screenplay ( quoted above ) .Again, like Sophie, Johnny non merely drops h’s from the beginning of words, but g’s from the terminal of words.

Like the above illustration, this is evident when analyzing this exchange between them ;Sophie: “Oh, fuckin’ ell! I bet they’re ‘appy, eh? All they got Tas do is sit around, howlin’ at the moon.”Rebel: “It’s better than standin’ on the cheesy fuckin’ thing. Know what I mean? I mean, tossin’ all these orbiters and shuttles out into the universe – what they think they’re gon na happen up at that place that they can’t find down ‘ere? ”On paper, phonetically transcribed as above, there is really small to state between the two assortments.

Wordss stoping in ‘ing’ are spoken stoping alternatively with ‘in’ , h’s are dropped from most words get downing with that missive. Besides, in maintaining with the pattern of ‘shortening’ which is common to most idioms in insouciant conversation mentioned above, both Johnny and Sophie audibly ‘fuse’ words together. Sophie pronounces ‘got to’ as ‘ got ta ’ , besides go forthing out the word ‘have’ after the word ‘they’ – neither does she utilize the shortened ( and correct ) ‘they’ve’ .

Johnny likewise turns ‘going to’ into ‘ gon na ’ .“They’ve got ta fuck infinite an’ all” , says Sophie at the terminal of this scene. Looking for some distinction to eventually successfully pick out Mancunian address as different from Sophie’s, we might believe the phrase ‘an’ all’ ( ‘and all’ with the ‘d’ dropped from the terminal of the word ‘and’ ) is an foible of Sophie’s ‘Londoner’ dialect – but as we move on to analyze the duologue between Johnny and his ex-girlfriend Louise, a fellow Mancunian, we see that yet once more, this phrase is no foible of either idiom, as Leigh has portrayed it ;Louise: “She’s got a really small waist, Sophie, an’t she? She’s got small tit’s an’ all.

”However, this same quotation mark does in fact uncover what appears to be an foible of, if non the Mancunian assortment of English specifically, one specific to many Northern English metropoliss ; the phrase ‘an’t she’ . The phrase ‘an’t’ ( a contraction of ‘hasn’t’ ) is non something heard in the type of idiom represented, for illustration, by Sophie ; a Londoner, peculiarly a Londoner who speaks something sounding like a Cockney idiom, is more likely to turn ‘hasn’t’ in address to ‘ain’t’ .This quotation mark ;Rebel: “So now you merely want inexpensive bangs and like plentifulness of ‘em, and it dun’t affair ‘ow tawdry or asinine they are every bit long as it’s new, every bit long as it’s new, every bit long as it flashes and fuckin’ beeps in 40 fuckin’ different colours.”besides reveals what appears to be another regional foible – the contraction of ‘doesn’t’ to ‘dun’t’ . This word, as it sounds ( dunt ) whilst cut downing two syllables to one, really does retain the vowel sound of ‘doesn’t’ ( which, phonetically, would be something like ‘duzzent’ ) as opposed to the Cockney assortment of English, which will frequently transform ‘doesn’t’ to ‘don’t’ .Other contractions are apparent in this scene. The screenplay shows Louise as undertaking ‘what’ and ‘are’ to ‘what’re’ ;“What’re you readin’ ? ”although in truth the hearable duologue sounds far more as if she has merely missed out the word ‘are’ wholly ;“What you readin’ ? ”A constituent of idiom, or assortment of a linguistic communication, although surely non the lone one, is pronunciation of words, or speech pattern. Since speech pattern is merely pronunciation and does non affecting any existent neutering or morphing of words as such, it is non discernable in the screenplay – nevertheless this facet of the Mancunian assortment of English becomes a greater trade clearer when really watching the movie.

It is merely hearing speech patterns, for illustration, that we can truly separate between the idioms of Johnny and Sophie, as there is so much commonalty in their address that it is difficult to state them apart in the screenplay.Watching the movie, we hear, for illustration, in the scene between Johnny and Louise, the word ‘butterfly’ pronounced more like what would be phonetically rendered as ‘ber-er-fly’ ( dropped ‘t’s ) . “Oh” sounds more like “Er” , the word “open” sounds more like “oarpen” . When Johnny in peculiarly says the word “bored” it sounds like “bard” ; “tawdry” would, as Johnny speaks it, be phonetically represented as “tar-dreh” .

Louise says the word “actually” sounding like “ack-chur-leh” .None of this is unusual, and all surely sounds like English spoken in a Mancunian speech pattern – no uncertainty many of the foibles which characterise this assortment of English, as Mike Leigh represents it here in this movie, are besides accurate. However, to return to the point made at the beginning of this essay, the duologue every bit good as the idiom in Naked is fictional, and merely a representation of the assortments of English presented. What is noteworthy, as demonstrated earlier, is the fact that although when watching the scenes between Johnny and Sophie in the movie, they are clearly from different parts of the UK, Sophie sounding more like a Londoner, and Johnny with a clearly discernable, thick Mancunian speech pattern, they seem to talk in a really similar manner once you disregard the speech patterns. This becomes a batch clearer when reading the screenplay.Of class, there are other things to bear in head – grounds that, for illustration, Johnny and Sophie might talk in a similar manner.

It could propose all kinds of things, from them holding a natural connexion and being likewise minded, to Sophie being influenced by the magnetic and persuasive Johnny to the extent that she has begun to emulate his address.This is possible – nevertheless what is besides possible, and so rather likely, is that Mike Leigh, holding visualised and created the characters he has conceived, has allowed some of his ‘voice’ as a author and manager to pervade the duologue of all the characters. An accusal frequently levelled at authors or managers is that they make all their characters speak in the same manner, whatever their background.Whilst it would non be wholly just to throw this charge at Mike Leigh, it is true that his movies make much usage of set-pieces ( in specific, uncovering or awkward societal state of affairss ) and they rely to a great extent on duologue. In order to keep the gait and convey and stand for the subjects and thoughts Leigh wants to portray, it is necessary for characters to talk and interact with each other in a certain manner, and for this ground, it is best to emphasize the point that the duologue in this movie is a representation of the idioms within it and nil more.BibliographyTextNaked: Screenplay ( Faber Reel Classics ) ( Paperback ) by Mike LeighFaber and Faber ; New edition edition ( 21 Feb 2000 )Onlinehypertext transfer protocol: //www.nationmaster.com/encyclopediahypertext transfer protocol: //uk.youtube.com/watch? v=Yzufbe3d8Ic & A ; feature=related hypertext transfer protocol: //uk.youtube.com/watch? v=UDpsNwR-cwg & A ; feature=related