International Journal on English Language and Literature Volume 2, Issue 1

ISSN 2321 – 8584

International Academic and Industrial Research Solutions Page 55

Dramatic Dialogues: The Art of Theatre

Shoaib Ekram

Ph.D. scholar

The English and Foreign Languages University, Lucknow campus

India

Shoaibekram@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT: The study of dramatic dialogue as interaction is a complex matter involving various frameworks

of analysis, but central to the dynamics of interaction is the concept of the turn, which can be glossed,

informally, as the enactment of a speaker’s right to speak by taking an opportunity to speak in a speech event or

a situation. The mechanics of dialogue is fundamental to the movement and understanding of drama. Dialogic

interaction is not just linguistic activity but also encompasses extra-linguistics co-ordinates such as the spatio-

temporal setting, the different roles and status of participants, the norms for speaking and the multi-layered

speech itself. Speech events include the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of speech, the setting and speaker-hearer relation, the

form, the content, the norms of interpretation and the goals of speech. The mechanism of speech alternation and

the management of interactional ‘floor’ - turn taking - are essential for the smooth flow of interaction. Drama is

thus ‘actional’, its progression being created through the dextrous interplay of the aforesaid parameters,

providing a deeper insight of the plot, theme, motifs and characters. The emphasis in drama on “dialogic form

as situational interaction” (Herman, 1995, p. 3) has led to the concept of ‘dramatic discourse’ and the present

analysis is within the purview of this thought.

The dynamics of dramatis dialogue are mirrored differently in different genres be it realism, absurdism

or expressionism. In this paper, I propose to analyse the dramatic discourse in Mahesh Dattani’s acclaimed

play ‘Bravely Fought the Queen’ (1991). The plays of Mahesh Dattani have emerged as fresh arrival in the

domain of Indian English drama in the last decade of the twentieth century. His plays deal with contemporary

issues and are modernist in nature. For this analysis of the dramatic dialogue I propose to use the turn-taking

model given by Emanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks (1978).

The term ‘conversation’ in the framework of conversational analysis can be wrongly understood by a layman

who mistakes it for social chit-chat only. It is best regarded as a technical term covering a variety of forms of

spontaneous social interaction in a speech community. Different analysts vary in their definitions and

delimitations of the scope of the term. Levinson opts for the narrow definition:

‘Conversation may be taken to be that familiar predominant kind of talk in which two or more

participants freely alternate in speaking, which generally occurs outside specific institutional settings like

religious services, law courts, classrooms and the like’.

(Levinson 1983:384)

Conversation analysis is an approach to discourse analysis which has been developed by a group of

sociologists who call themselves ‘ethnomethodologists’. Etnomethodology is an interpretive approach to

sociology which focuses upon everyday life as a skilled accomplishment, and upon methods which people use

for ‘producing’ it (Garfinkel 1967: Benson and Hughes 1983). Ethnomethodologists tend to avoid general

theory and discussion or use of concepts such as class, power or ideology, which are actual concerns of main

stream sociology. Conversation analysts have concentrated mainly upon informal conversation between equals,

such as telephone conversations. There has been a shift recently to institutional types of discourse, where power

asymmetries are more obvious.

Conversation analysts have produced accounts of various aspects of conversation: conversational

openings and closings; how topics are established, developed and changed, how people tell accounts in the

course of conversations; how and why people formulate conversations (giving gists, suggest what they imply).

Work on turn-taking, how conversationalists alternate in taking turns at speaking, has been particularly

impressive and influential. The concept of turn-taking is central to Conversational Analysis. It organizes the

distribution and flow of speech between the two poles of interaction. It has been described as a process in which

‘one participant talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and so we obtain an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of

talk across two participants’ (Levinson 1983: 296). Yet the co-ordination itself is achieved with some rapidity-

the time gap between one person stopping and the other person starting being just a few fractions of a second

and the turns are appropriated in orderly fashion. Overlaps can also occur in a conversation. Moreover, turn-

taking regularities are observable in instances where more than two participants are involved and in cases where

participants are not face-to-face, as in telephone conversations.

International Journal on English Language and Literature Volume 2, Issue 1

ISSN 2321 – 8584

International Academic and Industrial Research Solutions Page 56

It has often been understood that the organization of conversation in day-to-day settings must be

controlled by some kind of mechanism that facilitates the orderly distribution of turns and governs the progress

of talk. The description of such a mechanism has been the objective of a considerable amount of effort, and one

such, proposed by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1978), has gained priority, as set forth in their seminal review

of the systematics of turn-taking in conversation .

The conclusions which they arrived at after examining a large number of data were the following:

First the fact of turn-taking and that it must be organised, was something that the data of conversation

made increasingly plain: such facts as that one party talks at a time overwhelmingly, though speakers change,

though the size of the turns varies, though the ordering of the turns varies; that transitions seem finely co-

ordinated; that there are obviously techniques for allocating turns that are used whose characterization would be

part of any model that would describe turn-taking materials; that there are techniques for the construction of

utterances relevant to their turn status that bear on the co-ordination of transfer and on the allocation of

speakership; in short, a body of factual material accessible to rather unmotivated inquiry exposed the presence

of turn-taking and the major facets of its organisation.

(Sacks et al. 1978: 9)

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) propose a simple but powerful set of turn-taking rules. These

rules apply at the completion of a ‘turn-constructional unit’: conversationalists build their turns with units which

may be a complex sentence, a simple sentence, a phrase, even a word, and participants are able to determine

what this unit is and predict its point of completion with great accuracy. The rules are ordered: (1) the current

speaker may select the next speaker; (2) if not, the next speaker may ‘self-select’ by starting to produce a turn;

(3) if not, the current speaker may continue. The current speaker can select next speaker by indicating

preference by naming, by the use of pronouns or address forms, by pointing, or by eye contact and gazing at the

selected speaker, etc. The next speaker can self-select, especially if the first option was not used. The selected

speaker may not respond so that there is a ‘turn-lapse’, and the current speaker can incorporate the ensuing

silence as a ‘lapse’ into current turn and transform it into a ‘pause’, and continue with the turn.

The order of speech in dramatic texts is organized to project the order of turns to be taken by the

dramatis personae and is in the control of the dramatist. In the analysis of the extract given below, the variables

in turn taking system will be identified and the specific patterns and choices of users will be interpreted for what

they contribute to a reader’s understanding of the dramatic situation they construct. This is a partial analysis,

since other dimensions, like turn sequencing and pragmatics, and gender, are left out of account. The main focus

is on the turn-taking system and the turn-management strategies that are used. The extract is taken from Mahesh

Dattani’s Bravely Fought the Queen. There are six dramatic characters-Jitin Trivedi and Nitin Trivedi, who are

married to sisters; Dolly and Alka, and Sridhar and his wife, Lalitha. Sridhar works for the Trivedis. The drama

takes place in the Drivedi household. The turns are numbered for reference.

The turn –taking system proposed by Sacks et al. (1978) is one of the options for turn allocation and to

initiate turn exchange. Current speaker can select next, to whom turn rights pass or next speaker can self-select,

or the turn may lapse and the original speaker may incorporate the lapse into their own turn as pause and

continue with the turn. In the extract these options are used, but with different frequencies of occurrence. The

two most frequent options used are current speaker selecting next and self-selection, but they often clash since

the speaker selected by the current speaker is not the one who speaks next, since next speaker self-selects

against the rights to speak of the previously selected speaker. Jitin is the dominant character. Eight of the twenty

turns are Jitin's and he does most of the selection. In Turn 4, Jitin chooses Alka, but Dolly takes Turn 5. Lalitha

self-selects in Turn 6, changing the focus and direction of the talk away from Dolly to herself. Lalitha who self-

selects herself inTurn 6, selects Dolly but the latter’s turn is taken up by Alka. The self-selections are therefore

‘turn-grabs’ by unauthorised speakers who interpose themselves between Jitin and his targets.

Turn-grabs

Turn-grabs can have a variety of functions. Getting oneself involved into an interaction uninvited and against

the rights of invited speakers can be either self-oriented, to promote one’s own interests, or other-oriented. It

appears to be the latter here. Jitin selects Alka in order to bait her in one way or another. Thus the sarcasm

directed at Alka in Turn 4, and the potential conflict it can initiate is deflected from developing by Dolly who

interjects her own contribution and saves Alka from Jitin’s wrath. Alka, however, installs herself into the

interaction, and takes her delayed turn by self-selection, and, tells Jitin to drop Lalitha and Sridhar. Sridhar self-

selects in Turn 10, coming to the rescue of his wife when the latter is threatened by Jitin. Jitin’s Turn 15,

International Journal on English Language and Literature Volume 2, Issue 1

ISSN 2321 – 8584

International Academic and Industrial Research Solutions Page 57

addressed to Alka chiefly, gets a collective lapse, and the silence becomes a gap. This gap is filled in by Sridhar,

who takes up Turn 16. The gap is shown through the time taken by Sridhar from moving from his initial

position to the bar. He interposes himself into the conversation, powerfully sidelining Alka in his use of the third

person ‘she’ in Alka’s presence, while taking his turn.

The development of hostility is frustrated by the others self-selecting to speak. Turn-changes in the

responsive dimension are actually effected in such a way as to curtail the dominance awarded to Jitin in the

frequency of turns. Alka is most protected in this way, sometimes by Dolly and sometimes by Sridhar.

Turn allocation

The canononical expectations built into turn-taking rules is designed in a manner that allows the current speaker

to pass his turn to another. Jitin’s turn allocation strategies via participant selection are a defiance of the earlier

stated rule. His choice of addressee is usually polite, since he targets, often midturn, the addressee most likely to

be undermined by his taunts-Alka in particular. In Turn 4 Jitin answers Alka and addresses the last part of his

turn to her, with the sting in the tail specifically aimed at her: “. (Loaded with innuendo) So, what’s going on?”

Similarly, in Turn 13, having declared to Alka to whom his turn is addressed that he would prefer Nitin telling

her about the ‘on goings’, he selects Sridhar in Turn 15. In Turn 19, there is a swift change of addressee from

Sridhar to Alka. Dolly is generally omitted from the scope of the address, as the untargeted addressee, and the

conflict and antagonism is directed specifically at Alka.

Turn order

Turn order too reveals unequal distribution of turns among those present. The nineteen turns that constitute the

extract can be subdivided into basically two-party interactions in succession, within the six-party floor. Jitin is

central to all the interactions. All present address Jitin. He is thus the focal point of their speech. They do not

address each other, and so no ‘free-for-all’ floors or ‘schisms’ via turn management ensue. Turn order takes and

drops participants, one at a time, in succession. Thus, Turns 1-4 have Alka-Jitin-Alka-Jitin in interaction. The

pattern then changes with Dolly, Lalitha and Sridhar also getting their piece of turns. The initial sequence again

returns in Turn11 and continues till Turn 15. Dolly takes Alka’s Turn 5, and so there is a shift – Dolly to

Lalitha, but the order reverts to Jitin-Alka from Turn 11 onwards. Apart from Jitin, Alka is awarded most

number of turns and interactive prominence in the turn distribution pattern used.

Dolly takes Turn 5. She comes in as a protector of Alka, who is targeted by her husband. Dolly comes

in uninvited and takes up Alka’s turn. Thus we have the first turn-grab of the extract. The turn order is once

again disturbed with Lalitha’s utterance in Turn 6. She provides a topic-change. The focus now shifts from the

household chores to the duties of a host. Shridhar in Turn 10 comes in for the rescue of his wife, Lalitha, when

the latter is threatened by Jitin. The Alka-Jitin turn sequence is again seen from Turn 11-15. Although Jitin’s

Turn 15 is not directly addressed to Alka, she is definitely the referent of the utterance. There is a turn-lapse in

Turn 16. This lapse is shown through the stage directions, in the time taken for Sridhar to move over to the bar.

Till then no one speaks, although the turn was meant for Alka.

Turn change, on the whole, is smoothly achieved. One speaker speaks, stops, and the next speaker

speaks, stops, and so on. There is a variation, however, in one interruption, in Lalitha’s turn by Jitin in Turn 19.

The interruption by the speaker also denotes the dominant position which the person enjoys. The two dominant

participants, Jitin and Alka, conduct their interactions via a smooth turn change. They listen to each other fully

without any of the two cutting the other short.

Turn size and texture

Turn size and texture also vary, but not drastically. Jitin’s turns are usually longer. He uses turns to develop or

intensify some personal point to be delivered to his interactant- to Alka in Turn 4 to mock her, or in Turn 11, to

Alka again, but this time to threaten her. His turns also include questions which are loaded with taunt, as in Turn

4- “So, what’s going on?” Jitin is usually the one who dictates turns to others. His dominance is seen in Turn

15, when he orders Sridhar to make a drink for Alka. Sridhar revolts against his boss when the latter treats his

wife shabbily in Turn 9, but he is soon shown his position. Jitin speaks for Alka on her behalf even when she is

present in there. He answers to Sridhar’s query when the latter wants to know what drink she would like to have.

Alka’s turn-lengths vary-short, one clause and even a sentence. She is bullied by Jitin and finds shelter

in Dolly. She generally answers Jitin in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ manner. The stage directions before Turn 14, shows Alka

crossing over to Dolly and leaning on her. This shows the weakness of her. The leaning on Dolly is not only to

International Journal on English Language and Literature Volume 2, Issue 1

ISSN 2321 – 8584

International Academic and Industrial Research Solutions Page 58

be understood as a physical help but also as a psychological need of an external help. Dolly in Turn 5 does come

to her rescue Lalitha’s turns revolve around her own concern of reaching home safely. She does not seem

interested in the on-goings in the Trivedi household. In Turn 8, she tries to justify herself as to why she wishes

to go home, but is soon interrupted by Jitin: “Yes please. It’s getting late and…”

The linguistic style is uniform for all of them. Words from everyday language are used. Jitin uses

indirect statements mainly to attack Alka. Most of the turn sequence is in the form of question and answer.

Topic control is generally in Jitin’s hands, and others turn orientate to his. He is the one who gives turns to

others. He dictates the terms of the conversation.

The turn taking system has thus been used in a complex way throughout the extract to give us cues to

interpret both situation and character. The situation is a conflictual one with Jitin central to the conflict. The

situation develops in a sequential fashion with Jitin interacting with most of the participants in turn. All the

others’ turns are addressed to him, which makes him the focus of their attention. The majority of the turns are

Jitin’s, and he also initiates the majority of topics.

A detailed examination of this extract from Bravely Fought the Queen shows us that it is not only the

meaning of the dramatic dialogue which is worth interpreting, but the management of the saying itself, in the

judicious use of the variables of the turn-taking system which the dialogue projects.

References Cited

Benson, D and Huges, J. The perspective of Ethnomethodology. London: Longman. 1983.

Culpeper, J. Short, M. and Verdonk, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context. Oxon:

Routledge. 1998.

Culpeper, Jonathan. Language and Characterization: People in Plays and Other Texts. Essex: Longman, 2001.

Dattani, M. Bravely Fought the Queen. India: Penguin books. 2006.

Garfinkel, H. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey; Prentice Hall. 1967.

Herman, V. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge. 1998.

Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 1983.

Sacks, H, Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. A simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for

conversation. New York: Academic Press. 1978.

APPENDIX: Text of the conversation analysed

Act III

(1) ALKA. What’s going on?

(2) JITIN. You should be answering that question.

(3) ALKA. There are no goings-on over here.

(4) JITIN. You can fool Nitin, but not me. (Loaded with innuendo.) So, what’s going on?

(5) DOLLY. Stop it Jitin.

(6) LALITHA. Please, Dolly. Could you help us go home?

(7) ALKA. . Jitin, drop them at an auto stand.

(8) LALITHA. Yes please. It’s getting late and…

(9) JITIN (to Lalitha). Just shut up!

(10) SRIDHAR. That’s no way to talk to a lady.

(11) JITIN (to Alka). You are clever. You understand what’s going to happen to you, don’t you?

(12) ALKA. Yes.

(13) JITIN. Good. I want him to tell it to you.

(14) ALKA. (trembling, leans on dolly for support). I want a drink.

(15) JITIN (smiling). Sridhar. Fix your boss’s wife a drink.

(16) SRIDHAR (moves to the bar). What will she have?

(17) JITIN. Rum

(18) SRIDHAR. With anything?

(19) JITIN. Might as well drink it neat now.

(20) ALKA. Yes.

(Dattani 2006, Act III, 86-87)