King Lear Act 3 Scene 7 Essay Example

King Lear Act 3 Scene 7 Paper In act three scene seven of the Shakespeare play of King Lear Shakespeare creates a dramatic impact for the audience. Shakespeare creates this impact by using characterisation, language and different ideas. In this scene of the play is the plucking out of Gloucesters eyes. The plucking out of Gloucesters eyes creates a dramatic impact on this scene. In the Elizabethan times, when this play was written, this was a common thing that would have happened. The common punishment for a dukes crime, which Gloucester committed, was beheading. So instead of this looking like an evil action, to an Elizabethan audience this would be entertainment. In the past and present this scene has attracted many people to watch this play, with the features of good against evil which contains blood and violence. Many of the audiences watching this scene feel discomfort watching the plucking out of Gloucesters eyes. The language that is being used by Shakespeare enhances this discomfort. An example of this language is when Gloucester says In the hell black night, which shows evil in the language, this evil language used by Shakespeare enhances the discomfort of this scene, evil is also shown when Regan had no hesitation when telling Cornwall to pluck out Gloucesters eyes. The discomfort from this scene helps the audience understand how the characters are feeling when Gloucester is having his eyes plucked out. The play of King Lear is a story of tragedy, which means that the people who are in the audience will have come to see violence, pain, death and suffering. The first death in the play of King Lear is in this scene. The character who dies is the servant. The servant is killed because he challenges Regan who was of a higher class than the servant was. In Elizabethan times challenging someone of a higher class than you was considered a bad crime. However, challenging someone of a higher class than you is not considered as bad now because of freedom of speech. So an audience watching this play now would think that a person being killed for challenging someone as shocking, whereas an audience watching this in the Elizabethan times would watch the play and think that the killing was a common thing to happen. Shakespeare uses the theme of Gloucesters eyesight in this scene. This is used a lot in this scene to show what a fool he has been, and that he should have realised what had been happening to him behind his back. This shows how alike Gloucester and Lear are, because Lear also was a fool and could not see what Gonerill and Regan had been doing to him behind his back. Before the plucking out of Gloucesters eyes he could not see what Edmond had been doing to him. When Cornwall plucks out Gloucesters eyes, Gloucester can not physically see what is happening, however he could then see what a fool he had been and how he had been used when his eyes had been plucked out by Cornwall. This shows that Gloucester could not see what Edmond had been doing, until ironically Regan reveals Edmonds treachery just as his eyes are taken from him. Then when Cornwall had plucked his eyes out he recognises the symbolic irony of his previous blindness to the facts until after his physical blinding. We will write a custom essay sample on King Lear Act 3 Scene 7 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on King Lear Act 3 Scene 7 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on King Lear Act 3 Scene 7 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Shakespeare uses the theme of eyesight in other parts of the play as well as this, to show foolishness. Gloucesters foolishness is shown when he says, I stumbled when I saw. Lears foolishness is shown when he says to Kent Out of my sight, then Kent says to Lear see better, Lear which identifies the lack of Lears knowledge and again is symbolised by blindness. Shakespeare likes to use blindness to show the foolishness of the characters. Shakespeare shows this in act 3 scene 7 when Cornwall plucks out Gloucesters eyes and after his eyes have been plucked out he realises his foolishness. The manhood of the male actors plays an important part in this scene. This is shown when Regan plucks Gloucesters beard, in the Elizabethan times doing this to someone was an insult, especially if it was a woman who did it to a man. This was an insult because having a beard showed manhood. If a beard of a man was plucked by someone this was showing that the person plucking the beard thought that the person who had his beard plucked is less of a man; this was more insulting if a woman did this to a man. Gloucester takes this as a terrible insult, which is shown when he says, Naughty lady, these hairs which thou dost ravish from my chin. The importance of manhood is also shown when the servant says, if you did wear a beard upon your chin, Id shake it on the quarrel, this means that he is saying if you were a man then I would fight you. For the audiences watching this play in present times there is a language barrier because the audiences watching this play would have to translate the play into Modern English. The audiences watching this play in Elizabethan times would not have to translate the play into Modern English. This would mean that the audiences watching the play in Elizabethan times would see the play from a different perspective than audiences watching the play today. Throughout the play of King Lear, Gloucester and Lears lives run parallel to each other. The lives of Gloucester and Lear are shown as being alike because both of them did not realise how other characters in the play were betraying them. Lear eventually realised how much of a fool he had been, giving his kingdom away to Gonerill and Regan and not to Cordelia, when Gonerill and Regan had lied to him but Cordelia had loved him and received nothing from Lear. Now Gloucester had been betrayed by Edmond his life was now very similar to Lears life because Lear had also been betrayed. They both realised how foolish they had been and not to have noticed what had happened to them. They were also similar when Gloucester had his eyes plucked out by Cornwall because Gloucester could then see how Edmond had betrayed him when Lear realised how Gonerill and Regan had betrayed him. In this play the evilness of women is shown. This is shown by the evil things that Regan would do to other people to get power. Regan also commits the first murder in the play when killing the servant and then when Gloucesters eye has been plucked out she taints Gloucester by saying that Edmond has betrayed him when she says, It was he that made the overture of thy treasons to us. Lear describes Regan as tender-hefted, in act 2 scene 4, yet she takes part in barbaric maiming and kills a servant. The theme of this scene is evil, which is shown throughout the scene by Regan and Cornwall. The theme of this scene shocks and disturbs the audience and portrays the evilness of the characters. Regan shows how evil she is in this scene by saying, before killing the servant, Give me thy sword; Regan says this without any hesitation or thought. This shows that she has no thought for anyone or anyones life, which shows how evil she is in this scene. Another theme in this scene is good against evil, which many people find exciting to watch in a play, which may be one of the reasons why King Lear is a very popular Shakespeare play. In act 3 scene 7 the evil language, theme and characters are used, however in the quarts version of the play, this scene closes with two other servants who decide to assist Gloucester and soothe the pain that he received when his eyes were plucked out. In theatres the interval is often placed at the end of this scene because this scene could be used as the end of the play because it is one of the most dramatic scenes of the play.

Definition and Examples of Hypercorrection in English

Definition and Examples of Hypercorrection in English Hypercorrection (pronounced HI-per-ke-REK-shun) is a  pronunciation, word form, or grammatical construction produced by mistaken analogy with standard usage out of a desire to be correct. In some cases, hypercorrection may be a sign of language change. For example, in Understanding Language Use in the Classroom (2014), Susan Behrens points out that a hypercorrection such as Whom is it? would be rejected by everyone. However, Who did you see? would be rated by many as acceptable, even correct. Examples and Observations [H]ypercorrection crucially is motivated by the relationship between different dialects or languagesor rather by the relationship between these as perceived by their speakers.In many case, speakers focus on differences in prestige. Speakers of less prestigious dialects try to imitate a more prestigious one by adaptations in their pronunciation. . . .As the result of a variety of sound changes and analogical developments, English at a certain stage had two competing forms of the so-called gerund, a form in -ing (as in going) and a form in -en (as in goen). At a later stage, Standard English leveled out the form in -ing at the expense of -en. Many nonstandard dialects generalized -en, instead. This difference has since become one of the major features distinguishing standard from nonstandard English, and the use of the form in -en is often referred to as dropping ones gs. As speakers who drop their gs try to speak the prestige dialect, they replace their -en by -ing. And again, in many cases they go too far and extend their substitution to words like taken (as in I have taking it). (Hans Henrich Hock and Brian D. Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship. Walter de Gruyter, 1996) I heard a good one on the preacher last week. You know somebody got into his barn a while ago, and stole every blessed chicking he had to his name. (Fred Lewis Pattee, The House of the Black Ring: A Romance of the Seven Mountains, 1905) Whomever [W]e saw a t-shirt proclaiming I am for whomever beats Harvard. The whomever usage is nonstandard in this sentence since the pronoun is the subject of the predicate beats Harvard. Such overuse of supposedly correct words, pronunciation, or structure is called hypercorrection. If you dont quite know the way whom should be used, but believe that it is more prestigious than who, you might indeed overuse it. (Susan J. Behrens and Rebecca L. Sperling, Language Variation: Students and Teachers Reflect on Accents and Dialects. Language in the Real World: An Introduction to Linguistics, ed. by Susan J. Behrens and Judith A. Parker. Routledge, 2010)My friend, you are yesterday. Whomever pulled off this caper is tomorrow. (Robert Vaughn as Ross Webster in Superman III, 1983) The Use of I for Me and Whom for Who Perhaps the most common example of hypercorrectness is the use of I for me in a compound subject: between you and I. Other common hypercorrect forms include whom for who, as for like (She, as any other normal person, wanted to be well thought of), the ending -ly where it doesnt belong (Slice thinly), some verb forms (lie for lay, shall for will), and many pronunciations. (W. R. Ebbit and D. R. Ebbitt, Writers Guide. Scott, 1978)She had very little to say to Cathy and I.Whom are we inviting to the party?The phrase between you and I looks like a hypercorrection (and is confidently described as such by some) starting with latter-day harping by school teachers on such supposed errors as It is me. But between you and I is far too ancient and persistent to be any such thing. (A. Sihler, Language History: An Introduction. John Benjamins, 2000) False Plurals [T]he attempt to foist proper Greek and Latin plurals has bred pseudo-erudite horrors such as axia (more than one axiom), peni, rhinoceri, and [octopi]. It should be . . . octopuses. The -us in octopus is not the Latin noun ending that switches to -i in the plural, but the Greek pous (foot). (Steven Pinker, Words and Rules. Basic, 1999) The Grammar of Anxiety Who is to give [schoolchildren] warning signals about the whole Grammar of Anxiety, which springs from the chronic fear of being thought uneducated or banal and coins such things as more importantly, he invited Mary and I, when I was first introduced, and the end result? (Alistair Cooke, The Patient Has the Floor. Alfred A. Knopf, 1986) Virus Theory The key construct of Virus Theory [a term coined by linguist Nicolas Sobin, 1997] is the grammatical virus, which is envisaged as a surface rule that is acquired relatively late (for example during schooling). The effect of a virus is to trigger (or license) a prestige usage that core grammar would not normally be expected to produce. . . .Unlike normal grammatical rules, viruses typically make reference to specific lexical items. Consider, for example, the It was/is I construction that is sometimes found in prestige English usage. The nominative case form of the post-copular pronoun in this construction clearly diverges from the unmarked pattern, according to which post-copular position correlates with accusative case. . . . We can thus infer that the rule that allows It was/is I in prestige varieties is an addition to the basic usage. (Nigel Armstrong and Ian E. Mackenzie, Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) Labov-Hypercorrection Labov-hypercorrection [is a] secular linguistic term associated with the embedding problem in which style stratification of marker is such that (usually) the second highest status group in a speech community uses higher status variants in formal styles more frequently than the highest status group. This linguistic behaviour can be interpreted as being the result of linguistic insecurity. Labov-hypercorrection should be distinguished from hypercorrection, whch is a feature of the speech of individuals. Labov-hypercorrection is term which is due to the British linguist J.C. Wells, who suggested that it was necessary to distinguish terminologically between individual hypercorrection and group hypercorrection of the type first described by William Labov in his research in New York City. (Peter Trudgill, A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, 2003)