Zora Neale Hurston Commemorative stamp
Language Discussion
The language of Their Eyes Were Watching God moves back and forth between a vernacular language with its own distinctive grammar, vocabulary and style and a highly figurative and literary, but more mainstream, style. How are these two linguistic, literary styles used in the novel? What is the effect of alternating between these two styles?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Hey, everybody! Maria here, starting off the discussion on language. I hope a good summer is being enjoyed by all.
ReplyDeleteI’ve only read maybe a third of the book so far, but I’ve found it very interesting. The dialogue and language, however, hasn’t been quite as compelling as the narration. This is mainly due to the fact that the dialogue is written phonetically and is archaic Southern dialect.
“’G’wan! G’wan! You must think Ah brought yuh somethin’ . When Ah ain’t brought home a thing but mahself.’
‘Dat’s a gracious plenty. Yo’ friends wouldn’t want nothin’ better.’” (4)
This can make the book more difficult to read, as the spelling is intentionally incorrect for many of the words. Sometimes the book feels held back by the barrier of the reader simply trying to make sure they understand what’s going on.
Despite this, I understand Hurston’s choice to write this way. The way she writes is how people would have actually spoken, and a lot of these characters are most likely illiterate. It brings the reader further into the story by showing how the characters acutally would have pronounced their speech. The dialect does this even more so by showing the difference between the regional language of the characters and Hurston’s narrations, which are all accurate in spelling and grammer and include no dialect. Her narrations are also beautifully written, sometimes using metaphors
“Janie saw her life like a great tree in leaf with the things suffered, things enjoyed, things done and undone.” (8)
Her writing is also introspective at times, showing the characters thoughts and feelings in terms that transcend the characters’ dialect.
“Janie had had no chance to know things, so she had to ask. Did marriage end the cosmic loneliness of the unmated? Did marriage compel love like the sun the day?” (21)
This provides a sharp contrast with the language used by the characters, allowing their thoughts to be understood in their on speech, which entails all the aspects of their dialect, while also being explained by Hurston herself, in complex and articulate terns. Despite the barrier that the dialect sometimes creates, in adds another layer of complexity to the writing.
Hi guys, this is Alicia. I'm still in the first bit of the book, but the language is already incredibly distinctive.
ReplyDeleteThe voice of the narrator is very casual yet incredibly articulate.
"Finally out of Nanny's talk and her own conjectures she made a sort of comfort for herself. Yes, she would love Logan after they were married. She could see no way for it to come about, but Nanny and the old folks said it, so it must be so" (21).
The way this is stated makes it seem more like a discussion than a narrative. Previously, the narrator had written questions regarding whether or not she would or could love Logan. In the quote, she answers herself, which is very conversational. However, it is very clear and understandable, and it is not notably colloquial. This is appropriate, as the story is mostly, as far as i've read, Janie's narrative of her life, and the writing style reflects her character. Janie is a very relaxed and uninhibited yet strong presence among the women who gossip about her. Her defiant strength and lack of care for the opinions of others is reflected in the language of the narrative. Also, the quote is not quite grammatically correct; there is a missing comma in the first sentence and the third sentence is a run-on. However, this seems intentional, as large portions of the narrative have correct grammar. The errors affect the rhythm of the reading without making it unintelligible, which gives a distinctive voice to the writing style.
The dialogue in the book is also well done. Hurston shows the Southern accent and broken grammar in her writing that would probably have been used in the speech of her characters.
"Ah ain't gointuh do it no mo', Nanny."
This phonetic spelling is a style used by many authors, but it is rarely as useful as it is in this case. The narrative, although written in the third person, appears to be a story told to Phoeby by Janie, and it is written with much better grammar and far more eloquently than any of the dialogue. The narrative is Janie's story, and all of the thoughts and opinions are from her point of view, although it is not written in first person. Her thoughts and views show themselves to have the capacity of eloquence, and it gives a sense of hidden depth to her character. She clearly does not limit herself to the constraints of society, but even in doing that, she develops from the jealousy and spite of her colleagues a reputation of shallowness and thoughtlessness. Rather than resist reputation, she settles into it, as she doesn't seem to care one way or another. The accent is just how she would talk, as a Southerner, but the ideas she expresses and the way she expresses them out loud lack the eloquence that she demonstrates in the narrative. The reader gets the sense that she has more depth than she forces those around her to see.
Hey, it's Alicia again. Sorry. I forgot to include the page number of the second quote, so here it is again:
ReplyDelete"Ah ain't gointuh do it no mo', Nanny" (15).
Hi this is Isaiah. I just wanted to perhaps start a discussion between the dialogues between characters in the story as well as from the narrator. the two are quite different which I think adds another field of depth to the reading.
ReplyDeleteHey it's Kara, and one of the things that i want to bring attention to is what Maria said about metaphors.
ReplyDeleteA big part of the description and writing style for emotions is in metaphors. Usually the metaphors are things in nature, such as trees, sunset, oceans. They have also been mentioned in the pasage of time, such as seasons.
One of the main characters favorite seasons it seems to be is spring. One of her happier memories is described by using a blossoming tree, "Oh to be a pear tree - any tree in bloom! With kissing bees singing of the beginning of the world! She was sixteen. She had glossy leaves and bursting buds..." (11). This and a little before she's describing how beautiful and nice the tree is and how it makes her feel happy. With the tree, was also comes spring, and the way it made everything feel light and happy. It made it seem that Janie loves feeling that way and that spring was a prominent season for her. Hurston doesn't seem to use metaphors a lot, but when she does they're very elaborate, thought out and it seems like she has chosen her words carefully.
Since Hurston uses metaphors infrequently, and they were well written, they gave me clear images of what she was trying to describe. If what she was trying to describe was a feeling I was able to see what she was talking about and feel what she was describing.
Also ALICIA, I don't know what you think on this, but i get really immersed in the book trying to hear the accent when people are talking. Even if it's not grammatically correct I find that it adds personality to the story. It seemed like Hurston wanted to get the accent and the way people were talking across, and how different it was for them. She makes it very apparent that her style of writing is eloquent and her words are chosen carefully. I find it hard to adjust between the flowing way she describe things, to the choppy way people are talking.
The phonetic nature of the dialogue in this book is frustrating to no end. Others have said that "it adds to the feel of the story". If it does that for you, then congratulations. But for me it seems silly. Let me explain why.
ReplyDeleteBritish English accents are (mostly) non-rhotic, but American English accents are (mostly) rhotic. If whenever a British character with a non-rhotic accent spoke, all "ar" sounds were replaced with "ah" sounds, it would be considered strange and distracting. The same is true of the ebonics spoken in the book.
Written languages generally aren't perfect phonetic reflections of the way the speakers of the spoken version of the language speak, but that's okay. Some amount of accuracy can be(and historically has been) lost for the sake of standardization. Of course there isn't perfect consistency among written versions of the English language. For example, a Briton would spell it "standardisation".
It's actually kind of a unique feature of English. Other Western European languages like French and Spanish have authoritative bodies on the matter like Académie française or the Real Academia Española, respectively. In English, spellings only become standardized by convention rather than by the ruling of any group. The closest thing we have is perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary which differs importantly in that it's only a descriptive guide to the language rather than a set of prescriptive rulings. Based on this, it would seemingly be excusable to use phonetic spellings. And I would agree that it is, but it's still obnoxious. I would almost prefer it to be written in standard English with an assumed translation convention to be in effect. Actually, I WOULD prefer that. I guess at the end of the day it's really just a stylistic choice, but I really don't care for it.
I have not read much of the book so far (just about 4 chapters), but what I’ve read, for the most part, I’ve enjoyed pretty thoroughly. However, I do have a few complaints about the dialect used by Hurston. While I do realize that it is supposed to lend a more realistic light to the characters by giving them realistic personality traits, there are a few things about the dialect that nag at the back of my mind. In the first place, I’ve noticed that there are several instances of inconsistence in the dialect. For example, during the scene where all the women are gossiping about Janie as they watch her coming up the road, Mrs. Sumpkins says, “Y’all let her worry yuh. You ain’t like me” (3). First, she pronounces “you” as “yuh,” then right afterwards reverts to its correct pronunciation. While I do realize that this is there for the purposes of contextual dialect (Hurston often changes pronunciation of certain words depending on the context, “you” being principal among those words), this does not make it any less annoying, and it also feeds somewhat into my next issue with the dialect. Hurston does use a mainly phonetic dialect and appropriate phonetic contractions (“ain’t,” “’tain’t,” etc.), but in some places, where I, at least, feel that a contraction is necessary in order to remain true to what I feel like the dialect used by the characters in the novel are using, she does not use contractions, making the flow of the dialect somewhat choppy and less realistic. When Mrs. Sumpkins, for instance, says “You ain’t like me,” I feel that the dialect would more appropriately be conveyed by making a contraction of “you” and “ain’t” (“y’ain’t”), which would sound more natural and less roughly captured. While I do accept the fact that Hurston was an anthropologist and a linguist and had an infinitely larger knowledge of the people of the area and their dialects, these are just a few of my own observations about the language of the novel and my own uninformed frustrations.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, this is Andrew. I got the book just recently and I haven’t gotten very far, but one thing I noticed immediately is the language used by the characters in the book.
ReplyDeleteThe language used is casual with a lot of southern slang, which makes each dialogue seem loose and realistic. “At dat she ain’t so ole as some of y’all dat’s talking.” (3) To me, this made many of the dialogues in the novel hard to understand, but also intresting because it created a setting where the characters seem comfortable and open, rather than having strict, grammatically correct dialogue with a rigid setting.
Although the characters use a loose speaking style, the author narrates the novel intelligently by using clever metaphors and some narration about what characters are thinking. "The sun was gone, but he had left his footprints in the sky" (1) Instead of saying something like the sun disappeared, she instead gives the mental image of a sky with a trace of the sun.
Hi everyone, this is Shapari. I hope everyone is having a great summer and enjoying this book. I would like to talk about the use of accents in this book.
ReplyDeleteIn Their Eyes Were Watching God the author Zora Neale Hurtson uses rural southern accents to immediately place the reader in the time and setting that she wants. Hurtson may have been inspired to use southern accents by reading Mark Twain’s books. While Hurtson was growing up Twain had already published Huckleberry Finn, which she may had read growing up. I wonder if this story is biographic or inspired by people around her or just fictional.
Janie seems not yet at the age to marry, but Nanny seems very worried about her so she is eager to find her a husband. It could have been normal to get married young at this time and place.
Hello, another short post from me.
ReplyDeleteI would like to emphasize that I DID find the phonetic spelling of the words in the dialogue to be frustrating. It gave a very start-stop pace to the way I read the book. I also agree with Brandt observation about how inconsistent the phonetic words are, and while I feel like it was done this way for pronouncing purposes, it definitely cuts the flow of the dialogue.
I did feel, however, that despite my frustration with the dialogue, it definitely serves a purpose in showing what the way these characters would actually speak.
(also I just noticed that I spelled 'grammar' and 'grammer' in my original post. How ironic)
This is Rose in response to Shapari's comment about whether or not Their Eye’s were Watching God is completely fictional. Some aspects o the story are actually somewhat autobiographical. Like Janie with Tea Cake Hurston herself found herself madly in love with a man nearly 20 years younger than her. Additionally Hurston regarded Eatonville, Florida as her hometown. In the end however Hurston chose her work over her love and while in Haiti her experiences helped her in writing Their Eyes Were Watching God.
ReplyDeleteAs I started to read this novel, I asked my self why Hurston chose to write the dialogue in such a deep southern accent, especially because it is so difficult for the reader to understand. The grammar and language is so far off from what we are used to seeing and hearing everyday that it almost seems like a foreign language. After reading deeper into the book, I realized that this distinct language adds charm and depth to each of the characters. Each of their personalities is exposed through their choice of words and dialect. In addition, the time and setting is clearly exposed through this style of writing. For example in the first appearance of dialogue in the novel, Nanny complains, "What she doin' coming back here in dem overalls? Can't she find no dress to put on? Where's dat blue satin dress she left here in? Where all dat money her husband took and died and left her?” (2). This quote is written the language of Nanny, and as a result, more than just the concept of what she is saying comes through. In addition, the language supports her complaints about Janies appearance and dress. Nanny complains that she needs to dress properly and that she needs the money from her husband, claiming that Janie is dependent on men. This old fashioned idea comes hand in hand with the language it is said in, enhancing the reality and depth of the characters.
ReplyDeleteAs far as dialogue goes, I find it readable in Their Eyes are Watching God and see the significance in it though I may not enjoy it or entirely see the reasons for some of its inconsistency. What I do find more enjoyable is the poetic language the author uses to describe the actions of people in such a way that makes simple rather thoughtless gossip or harsh words into a small storm of a mob, for example. While in actuality nothing more then talk occurs, the reader can feel a sense of intensity because of the metaphors. The small phrase about the creation of “killing tools out of laughs” from so early on in the novel has stuck with me further into the reading. It, and other small phrases, seems to flavor the entire experience of the novel. The depth of this makes it a more enjoying read, despite the slightly annoying dialogue. (~Jessie)
ReplyDeleteI don’t usually read these kinds of books as I just get bored and end up putting them down. But I find the language in this book interesting and it keeps me reading. I also like Hurston's use of imagery in the story.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book so far is in the beginning when Hurston describes the pear tree. The imagery in this quote is what I really enjoy about her writing.
“That was to say, ever since the first tiny bloom had opened. It had called to her to come and gaze on a mystery. From barren brown stems to glistening leaf buds; from the leaf buds to snowy virginity of bloom. It stirred her tremendously. How? Why? It was like a flute song forgotten in another existence and remembered again.“
Though the language that the characters use makes it difficult to read, it makes the characters more realistic. I can picture them having conversations.
Hey it's Daniel. Out of all the passages in the book that I've read so far (which is not a lot) I guess the opening of the book is kind of the only part that I found interesting. I interpreted the first paragraph to metaphorically represent man’s journey to move out of seclusion. “Ships at a distance have every man’s wish on board.” Could be interpreted as those planning to move out of seclusion dream of better places. Ships represent motion to move onto greater and unknown lands, and this “wish” is the desire to reach these lands “For others they sail forever on the horizon, never out of sight, never landing… his dreams mocked to death by time” could be interpreted to be that some search their whole lives for better places, but never find it. “To sail upon the horizon,” means that those searching will be relentless in their search, and that “never out of sight” means that the person always thinks they know where they’re going and what they want. By “never landing” it means that the person has not found what they were looking for, nor have they found what suits them because they are relentless in their search for more, “his dreams mocked to death by time” means that the person has spent their life looking for something that wasn’t there. It’s a relatively open ended metaphor, so if you guys have anything to add, please do.
ReplyDelete^^^To clarify it's Daniel Loose^^^
ReplyDeleteI started to read the book after I got home from the Freshmen orientation, which was almost two months ago, and I’ve only read the first two chapters.
ReplyDeleteUsually I can finish a book in a few days, but I’m not too fond of it because I’ve found the dialect to be quite annoying.
I know that the grammar matches the decade the book is set, but it slows down the plot. I’ve had to reread the dialect so many times that it has been hard to read the book.
I enjoy reading the narrative very much, but the dialect is so irritating. Its as if I’m reading a story written by two different people.
Just my quick input on the language topic: I also find Hurston's phonetic interpretation of the southern dialect difficult: switching from the narrator's gentle and poetic language to the choppy and difficult-to-read dialogue was very irritating. I found myself reading the dialogue twice: once working through it to actually figure out what was typed, and then a second time with an understanding of what was said with an added southern-accent in my head, which is so tedious! However, I think that this was actually very necessary in truly representing the characters and the African American culture of the south. For example, it would seem unrealistic if the sentence "Ah wuz speakin' jus' all right befo' you stuck yo' bill in" (pg. 42) were written as "I was speaking just all right before you stuck your bill in." I think the issue is visually switching from standard-typed English-which does not necessarily represent the way most people would pronounce the words-to a very literal phonetic interpretation of black-southern-English. Had the dialogue been in a movie, however, not only would it be totally appropriate to include the accent, but it would be much easier to take in and understand. But even in the book, I think Hurston's choice of adding the accent was necessary, as is the contrast between the narrative voice and the dialogue.
ReplyDeleteZora Neal Hurston's choice to frequently switch up the dialogue was a bold one, and although at first it is somewhat disconcerting, in the end, I feel that it contributes to a more rounded and vibrant text. I however would like to dwell more upon another theme concerning language in the novel, the general motif of speech versus silence. I know that this blog entry is supposed to focus solely upon Hurston’s use of both mainstream and classic southern styles of writing, but I think you will find if you think about it, her contrasting styles are what lend to this overall theme of speech versus silence.
ReplyDeleteBy switching between the rich dialect spoken by Janie and Hurston’s own style of writing, the author seems to remove herself from the story, this is an interesting device, as many authors strive to make themselves unheard, preferring to speak through their characters. In the novel, a characters ability to speak is linked to their power, and I think the author chose to preserve that for herself as well. In the book both power and conquest are portrayed as means of fulfillment and thus, when Jody try’s to silence Janie her hatred of him seethes over, and conversely when teacake engages her in conversation her love for him grows.
Hi, this is Julian, hope everyone is having a good summer
ReplyDeleteI have only read a very small portion of this book, but so far what really stands out to me is the language in which this book is written. I have read a lot of comments by people pointing out how hard the dialogue is to read in this book, and how it clashes with the smooth, poetic, and intellectual omniscient narrators style. I have mixed feelings about this issue. I agree with peoples points in that at times it is difficult to understand what the characters are saying, considering both the odd pronunciations, and also the old style southern slang. That said, I also think that it makes this book distinctive. It really puts the reader back in those times, and you get a better feel for that era. I feel as though the interesting southern speech would do more for me if it varied more from character to character, which so far it has not very much. It would both make characters more distinctive, make the book more varied, and I think that it would help, at least for me, to make there less of a clashing between the vary two different styles of language used in this book. Considering this book was first published in 1937, I imagine that the use of slang and accents would differ from these days. Also, this sort of southern speech was used back in the times that this book was written, so it may be very distracting to us reading this book, but 74 years ago this type of speaking was still in use. This means that to the audience she wrote this for, this type of speech was much more acceptable and understandable than it is to us. So far, the language used in this book has come across to me as both distracting at times, but also very clever and interesting.
Examples of southern speech and slang
-“if God don’t think no mo’ ‘bout ‘em then ah do, they’s a lost ball in de high grass”(5).
-“Most of dese zigaboos is so het up over yo’ business till they liable to hurry theyself to judgment to find out about you if they don’t soon know”(6).
-“Unless you see de fur, a mink skin ain’t no different from a coon hide”(7)
I would be interested to hear how other people thought that the time period this was written in would affect the speech and other aspects of the novel. Hope you guys enjoy the book.
I started reading the book and the dialect wasn’t really that hard for me to understand. But as the book continued, the dialect continued to get increasingly more difficult and confusing for me. I always have to reread everything sentence by sentence because I don’t often understand it the first time. The way I try to read the dialect parts is like when you see the definition of a word in the dictionary and then there are the parentheses and inside them is how you would say or pronounce the word. So I found it easier to understand the dialect by sounding out what the spellings were and how you would speak the words. That also helped me understand the dialogue. The language in the book sort of reminds me of the way Shakespeare used to write, but it’s only because the dialogue is complicated and usually takes more than one time to read it and understand. The spelling of most words in the dialogue is wrong, because the spellings of most words were as they would have been spoken with those specific accents, in that specific time. Another thing that was a tiny bit confusing for me was the difference between the narrator talking and the characters talking. The narrations were all grammatically correct and all of the spellings were right. Then all of a sudden it would switch back to the talking, and all of a sudden I would have to be sounding out each word to figure out what they were talking about. I haven’t really gotten too far in the book yet because I have been spending lots of time rereading sentences and making sure I understand most of it.
ReplyDeleteHey, this is Hannah Miller. So my whole entry was just erased, and since it was an amazing, creative, funny entry, please excuse me if this is not quite so long or funny.
ReplyDeleteIn Sherman Alexie's "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian", the main character has a lisp and a stutter. Luckily, the book is not written phonetically. I feel that if it was, it would have taken away from the plot and added unnecessary confusion. With the language in this book, however, a whole new level is added onto the story. The phonetic language represents a culture, the culture of illiterate African-Americans living in Florida in the mid-20th century. This culture underlays the plot. I think we will all agree that if this was a story with Caucasians, or Asians, or Middle-Easterners living wherever at different time periods, the story would be a lot different. The phonetic language adds to the story. It also makes the characters more real.
Although I don't relate to the story very much (I am not African-American, I have not yet married, and I live in California in the 21st century), the literary language makes it easier for me to relate and understand the story. The literary language is like this universal language of books that I have learned to know and love, so it makes me more connected to Janie. With the help of the two languages, I understand her culture and her story and her feelings, and I can both relate to her with my heart and study her like an anthropologist at a distance.
Update to post from Unknown July 24, 2011 5:01 PM: this is Mimi Howland's 8/1 post, early, since I'll be away that week. ~Mimi
ReplyDeleteHi everybody,
ReplyDeleteIt's actually quite surprising to me how many people have a problem with the different accents, especially because everybody but the incoming freshmen read Huckleberry Finn last year in which one of the main characters, Jim, had a heavy accent. For me, at least, that made this book much easier to understand. I have been wondering whether the fact that people find it much harder is because of the narrator's voice. In Huckleberry Finn the narrator did not use such elegant language as in Their Eyes Were Watching God.
This brings me to my next comment. I want to talk about what Olivia said one of her blog posts: the narrator separates herself from the characters by using such intricate language. I thought that this was a really good point.
Because most of the characters carry the southern accent, the dialogue throughout the story incorporates the literary style. The writing style is therefore heavily emphasized in this book and it is essential to grasp what is being said in order to understand the plot. Despite the two uses of mainstream language and the distinct language of the characters being constantly switched within the story, I agree with the fact that reading Huckleberry Finn made this book not as difficult to read.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, Devon Katz here (Maybeck New Recruit)
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I tore into this book i knew that the style and language in which the dialogue between characters was was written was going to be a huge challenge to comprehend. Even though I am only approximately 21 pages into this book i still find it challenging and it becomes increasingly more so as the book continues. However as challenging the language is I think its a extremely important element of the writing style of both Zora Neale Hurston and this(her) work of literary art. The language of this book really helps you get a idea of how it was to live in this time period and gives you a taste of that southern lifestyle.
In a way Hurston also uses the dialect of the dialogue to separate her narration from the dialogue between characters(as was previously stated by Olivia May).
Hurston's writing style is very unique, she helps you really get into the book by both using the dialect that was used in that era and also "painting a picture with words". She almost makes a landscape inside your head where the story takes place which is filled with even the smallest details, Its a wonder that she can do this and still be extremely poetic simultaneously.
Hey guys, I personally have had very little trouble with the accents, and while I may have to read slowly at times, I definitely agree that it gives the dialogue a more authentic feel. I've found It fun to read and use a southern accent in my head, but perhaps I'm relatively alone there.
ReplyDeleteAside from however difficult or fun the vernacular accents are, I've found that they also serve as an important distinction from the much more sophisticated language that is used to describe character's inner thoughts and feelings. This passage is a great example of that language: "There is a basin in the mind where words float around on thought and thought on sound and sight. Then there is a depth of thought untouched by words, and deeper still a gulf of formless feelings untouched by thought"(24).
Besides being a generally good example of the intriguing and creative language, I feel that this quote says a lot about the vernacular language versus the inner thoughts/feelings language. While the characters may speak in the uneducated vernacular dialect, they have a deeper understanding and knowledge that cannot be expressed with their probably limited vocabularies. Hurston uses the poetic literary language to express the deeper feelings of Janie where the language that Janie uses wouldn't do them justice. As in the quote, words and thoughts float around at the surface of the mind, and in the novel this is expressed in the vernacular language. Yet underneath the words, thoughts, and even the sense perceptions, there is a "deeper gulf of formless feelings untouched by thought". So while the heavy accents show the self that Janie puts forth for the world to see, the beautiful poetic language describes the inner self that only Janie knows about.
At least, that is how I've interpreted the use of the two languages.
-Gabe
So first, I just want to say I have not read all of the posts on language so please forgive if I say something that has already been said. With that disclaimer I wanted to talk about how the language in the book interacted with me personally as the reader. That parts that feature a very broken English serve as a constant reminder to the culture of the people allow for a very immerse reading experience. Also, the characters have very profound insights into the human condition show how how wise and truly intelligent, despite not have the best mastery of English. A good example of this is in this quote; "He ani't kissin' yo' mouf when he carry on over yuh lak dat. He's kissin' yo' foot and tani't in uh man tuh kiss foot long. Mouf kissin' is on uh equal and dat's natural but when dey got to bow down tuh love, dey soon straightens up."
ReplyDeleteIn addition, there is also the narration, that has a very eloquent and polished writing style, creating additional contrast between the two styles of writing. The language in the book is very dynamic and adds lots of depth to the book.
This was a quote I found interesting from chapter 5
ReplyDelete“All we can do, if we want any light after de settin’ or befo’ de risin’, is tuh make some light ourselves.”
(Page 45)
Even though they were talking about putting in a street lamp, I think this is a metaphor for happiness. I think this was the author’s way of saying that we should see the best in every situation and if there’s nothing to be happy about, you should do something about it. You won't get any happiness unless you try.
I agree with Jyoti and Mimi about the dialect being a bit difficult. It was especially hard for me to understand the book in the beginning but once I got through the first few chapters the book became much more easy to read and interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of nice to read a book where everything isn't spelled perfectly and grammatically correct. It somehow makes the story more realistic. It makes it easier for me to imagine each character and it's definitely a bit of a challenge because I'm not used to reading that dialect but it makes the book more unique.
Hi, it’s Alex. Having just read Huckleberry Finn, I was able to understand the language fairly easily. Despite that, it was still confusing at times. The language not only reflects a regional southern dialect but also the educational level of the people that are speaking. Some of the characters have either been former slaves, or grew up with former slaves. This means that they probably didn’t have much education and learned how to speak from other people who had the same amount of education. This is how most southern African American dialects began. Therefore the language is hard to understand because we come from a different cultural context and time.
ReplyDeleteMore on the phonetic dialogue. It's inconsistent. For example, "lak" and "like" are used interchangeably, as are "yo" and "you" and "mouth" and "mouf". I would excuse this as varying accents, IF IT WASN'T OFTEN FROM THE SAME CHARACTERS. Are the accents of the early 20th century American South really so diverse as to cause drastic changes in an adult's pronunciation with at most a few years of exposure? I'm not a linguist, but I'd say no. Did Hurston even proofread the dialogue to check for consistency?
ReplyDeleteHey Olivia,
ReplyDeleteI like your point about speech vs. silence and how being able to speak is closely related to a character's power. I didn't really understand what you meant when you said "By switching between the rich dialect spoken by Janie and Hurston’s own style of writing, the author seems to remove herself from the story". If you see this post, could you elaborate on that?
Thanks,
Gabe S-T
In response to the points that Baeo brings up in regard of the phonetic dialect, the dialect is an extremely important part of the book. The characters do not speak in grammatically correct and perfectly spelled English because doing so would take meaning out of the text of their characters. The dialect the characters are speaking isn’t a matter of separating the reader from the text or bringing the reader closer to the text, the dialect is the text. A simple way of bringing it into the context, especially the stressed-upon “verbal inconsistencies” and deviation from what we know as proper English preformed throughout the book, is to look at it through the lens of an actor. As any actor knows, the way one’s character speaks is an essential part of that character; verbal quirks and “oddities” help define the character. In that sense, the use of dialect is what makes Hurston’s characters real and believable, and without it this text would suffer immensely. After taking that basic explanation for the dialect into account, one may move on to the “spelling inconsistencies”. People do not always say the same word in the same manner. We are not machines programmed to put stress on certain parts of a word every time or speak in the same tone of voice or accents on all occasions. I am a firm believer that it is possible never to sneeze the same way twice, and carrying that over, there can be many variations in saying the same word in the same fashion. Subtleties one might say. Beyond that though, people will say words in different manners at different times, putting stress on different parts of the word, often for no particular reason. Hurston spells words said by the same character differently in an effort to make the phonetic dialect feel more natural. As the characters are not actors on the stage to verbally speak and create their dialogue, measures must be taken to represent this.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that though, I do believe that such a discussion on “proper and improper” grammar is not need when it comes to literature. In art, you cannot paint a tree “wrong”. If the artist says it is a tree or represents a tree, though it may barely resemble a tree, it is so. Writing is a form of art, therefore, we shouldn’t waste our time looking at the minor details, such as whether or not a spelling is correct. Instead, look at the meaning behind such “deviations from the norm”. That’s where the best material is.
Man, I could not agree with Theo more about the dialect. Very well put!
ReplyDelete-Gabe
"the dialect is the text"
ReplyDeleteNo, no it isn't. Spoken English has several dialects with varying pronunciations. Written English DOESN'T. At least not beyond some very minor spelling and frequency of use variations. This is why rhotic English dialects look essentially the same as non-rhotic ones when written. The grammar differences are fine, but the spelling differences aren't. It doesn't make sense.
Things like this are why English has developed a written language with such loose pronunciation guidelines. It's easier to understand a person's meaning if they have different pronunciations while talking to them than reading a phonetic transcription of their speech.
"We are not machines programmed to put stress on certain parts of a word every time or speak in the same tone of voice or accents on all occasions"
Okay, sure. This would be a good explanation if the inconsistencies seemed to have contextual meaning, but most of them don't. The only other explanation I can think of relies on the natural variation within human speech. My first impression is that the variation would be to big, but I didn't want to say that without research to back it up. Here's the thing though: I can't find any. Yep, I can find no research having to do with the variation of pronunciation within an individual's speech. The closest thing I could find was the "Consistency of tone-syllable alignment across different syllable structures and speaking rates". It said that there was actually fairly high consistency, but I'm not sure how applicable that is(considering that it's Mandarin and not really the same sort of pronunciation). So you may be right, but unless you can offer data to back it up I'm not dropping my position on this.
"I do believe that such a discussion on 'proper and improper' grammar is not need(sic) when it comes to literature. In art, you cannot paint a tree 'wrong'. If the artist says it is a tree or represents a tree, though it may barely resemble a tree, it is so. Writing is a form of art, therefore, we shouldn’t waste our time looking at the minor details, such as whether or not a spelling is correct. Instead, look at the meaning behind such 'deviations from the norm'"
I didn't say it was improper, I said it was non-standard. Heck, in my other post on language I went out of my way to say that English doesn't really have incorrect spellings. I agree that this sort of thing is okay if there's a good reason for it, but there isn't in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the reason you suggested isn't just not good, it's actually quite a bad one. It's an incredibly superficial way to tell you about the characters, and reflects rather poorly on Hurston as a writer if she needs to rely on gimmicks like this.
Also, just a minor gripe, but looking at small details in art is not a "waste" of our time. There's a whole approach to philosophy that would argue with you over that called reductionism. A whole is nothing but the sum of its parts.
One thing that is bothering me is people's claim of inconsistencies in the dialogue. I think that the speech patterns are very well written and aren't made to be consistent, because speech patterns are not consistent in every day life, even though we may be used to it when it comes to reading. In other words, I completely agree with Theo. Theo, be proud, you've gotten approval from both gabes!
ReplyDelete"I think that the speech patterns are very well written and aren't made to be consistent, because speech patterns are not consistent in every day life"
ReplyDeleteFine. I can accept that the dialogue is made to be inconsistent. But if I accept that then I'd also have to accept that Hurston knowingly produced dialogue that's neither pleasant to read, or an accurate reflection of reality. Adults don't lose and acquire a rhotic or non-rhotic accent(e.g. yo' and your, I don't your ever showed up in dialogue, but other rhotic pronunciations like car and leather definitely did) several times over there adult life(within the space of what could be hours) unless they have some sort of speech disorder. The same is true of the nonsensically acquired and lost use of dental fricatives(e.g. mouf and mouth). It just doesn't happen.
Unless it's "Their Eyes Were Watching God" of course. In that novel, apparently even the most common sense linguistics are thrown by the wayside while maintaining a superficial glint of realism! And if you criticize it, you won't need to wait long for people to jump to it's defense claiming that "it's realistic" when really it's just a cheap gimmick.
You don't need to know much more about linguistics to understand why these inconsistencies are incredibly unrealistic, but the fact that she was an anthropologist and really should have known better makes it even more baffling.
Call me a sucker for "cheap gimmicks" but I find Hurston's decision to write as she did to be easily understood. The novel tells the story of a culture very different from the one that originated standard English. There are very few white characters; we're reading about African-American people in an African-American community. They are proud of what sets them apart and I don't see that they would want to fit in with white culture. I understand Hurston's desire to make their differences distinct. If she had written the entire book in standard English, the reader would be hearing the words spoken in their head as they would pronounce them. For instance, say that we were reading a book set in New Zealand, centered around a group of characters who spoke as New Zealanders do. "I like eggs" would be said by the characters something like "Oy loik iggs," whether or not it had been written in non-standard form. If the author had wanted to make the difference in our accents distinct, it's likely that they would have written "Oy loik iggs". Even though it looks like gibberish to any reader, that pronunciation is completely standard for a New Zealander. However, if it had been written normally - "I like eggs" - the reader would automatically pronounce it in their head as they would say it aloud, regardless of whether or not it was what the author intended. This point has shifted radically off-topic - basically I'm just saying that I understand and support Hurston's decision.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a fairly relevant point to take into account: "Their Eyes Are Watching God" is a sort of autobiography. It's very likely that Hurston was writing the dialogue in the way she herself spoke, so if Janie said "mouf" but narrated "mouth," for instance, it is because Hurston knew perfectly well how to spell the word, but also recognized that her own way of saying it was different from the standard. I see no need to look for any overly pedantic justification as to why she wrote the book her way. The answers can be found by interpreting what we feel about the characters, what we know about the author and what we learn about the context of the book.
"'I like eggs' would be said by the characters something like 'Oy loik iggs,' whether or not it had been written in non-standard form"
ReplyDeleteNo, no it wouldn't. The written English language doesn't really have any standard word pronunciations. SO when you say that "'I like eggs' would be said by the characters something like 'Oy loik iggs,'", you assume a pronunciation rather arbitrarily. Ask a Kiwi to look at the word "iggs" out of context and do his best to pronounce it. Now(assuming the same pronunciation you chose), we'd say it sounded something like "eegs", and an Australian might say it sounds something like "uggs". Now, there is a way to actually show pronunciations in a universal way through use of the IPA. I think if Hurston cared enough the dialogue would be written in it(because it was half a century old when the book was published and would have been at least mentioned to an anthropologist). Even this was linguistically sound, it's still a superficial way to give your characters personality.
"(I)f Janie said 'mouf' but narrated 'mouth,' for instance, it is because Hurston knew perfectly well how to spell the word, but also recognized that her own way of saying it was different from the standard"
So? I was talking specifically about dialogue. And yes, "mouth" is used several times in dialogue. I can give you quotes if you want. Plus don't forget how there accents spontaneously gain and lose rhotic pronunciations in the same sentence. Unless someone presents a third option, I'm torn between thinking that Hurston must be either the most incompetent anthropologist ever when it comes to language, or simply didn't care enough to bother checking for consistency in the dialogue.
Maybe we can just agree to disagree about the dialogue? Everyone interprets things differently, and so what one person enjoys, another may detest.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is a place for voicing one's opinions and interpretations, but the discussion seems to be becoming unnecessarily angry. Again, that's my interpretation of what's been posted; perhaps it isn't angry at all. I'm just suggesting that we drop the heated debate over the dialogue and accept that there are differing views about it. Alternatively, continue voicing opinions and interpretations; that's what the blog is for!
-Gabe
I don't really see the discussion as particularly angry or heated, but even if it was, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing anyways.
ReplyDeleteAs for the interpretations business, the inconsistencies in the dialogue are not a matter of opinion. They're either there or they're not.
whoa dude... chill
ReplyDeleteMy brother seems to think that the dialect is inconsistent. While I do know of some instances where that is true, I didn't find that it impacted over all enjoyment or understanding of the book. At times, one character might say "the" and then turn around and say "de", sometimes, as I recall, in the same sentence. However, if I'm being honest, you don't really notice it unless you look for it and, for all I know, the author did this on purpose to show changes in pronunciation when one of the characters is barreling through a sentence. The bottom line for me is that Miss Hurston was an anthropologist and therefor probably knew what she was doing when she wrote the dialect. That said, it is interesting to go through the book again after reading it once or twice to look at these cases or possible discrepancies.
ReplyDeleteThere's a problem with that theory. The sound "th" is notoriously difficult to produce for people who didn't grow up with it. Assuming the characters are speaking some form of BVE(or something similar), the "th" sound should be incredibly difficult for them to speak with. Some of them have been exposed enough to other variants of English(realistically, it would probably be Florida Cracker, which does have dental fricatives) that they might be able to manage a "th" sound if they try(though why they would is a pretty good question), but most of them wouldn't be that exposed. And even if you were exposed, if you were rushing through your sentence like Quinn suggested, I really doubt they'd put effort into it under those circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYou might find, if you read the dialogue aloud, that at least some of the apparent inconsistencies make sense. For instance, in the case of the sentence that ends "yuh," followed by the sentence that begins "You," reading the two sentences aloud makes it clear (at least to me) that it was a conscious (and sound) choice. If you replace "You" with "Yuh" in that second sentence, it just doesn't work (in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteTruth be told, I don't know enough about the phonology of BVE to know whether vowel variances like that are common or not. But it really doesn't matter, since I don't think I ever mentioned it anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think that really what it comes down to is simply that it’s a stylistic choice on the author’s part. I do agree with you beo that it is not necessary in the least, It disrupts the flow of the novel, and it is not standard to write out accents. This means that it is technically not correct, but that’s not the point of writing. Writing is an art, and thus isn’t always perfect, nor does anyone really try to say it is perfect. It is done in different ways, and is subject to different opinions. Your opinion, one in which I share, is that it does not fit this novel, others may disagree. You are correct that it is not normal to do, and isn’t really correct, but as for whether or not it’s good, that is for the specific reader to decide for themselves. The writer in this case decided to forgo the smoothness of writing the words in the normal way, in the hope that it would make up for it in the sense of putting the reader better in that time period, and helping you really imagine being there watching this scene unfold by better being able to see what the characters talking would be like, I personally think that it did not pay off. As for inconsistencies in the dialogue, the truth is humans do not speak consistently. I know I don’t. My pronunciations on words change drastically from sentence to sentence, especially depending on the situation, and truthfully it doesn’t really matter. The author might even intentionally use some inconsistences, for I know that one thing authors try to do is to not seem repetitive, and to switch things up often so that it doesn’t get boring. Though it’s true that I haven’t seen it done often with simple words like the/de which she does sometimes in this novel, for those should generally be standards within a novel, but more complicated words are often switched with synonyms, but there also even sometimes switched with different pronunciations, and yes it seems inconsistent and frustrating, but again it’s just the authors choice about how she wants the dialogue to sound. I have read many books where the dialogue is written out as the character might say it, so it is not some strange thing that only this book does, it just does it to a larger extent than I’ve seen before, and has more small inconsistencies that detract from the smoothness of the novel. So, though I agree with you overall, in the end it really is true that literature is not supposed to be a perfect and structured writing, which I’m glad of because I would find that boring. It is instead supposed to be whatever the author finds gets their ideas and story across most effectively, and in the manner in which they most like, for writing is just an expression of the writer trying to tell a story.
ReplyDelete-Julian
"I think that really what it comes down to is simply that it’s a stylistic choice on the author’s part" – Julian
ReplyDelete"I guess at the end of the day it's really just a stylistic choice" – Baeo
"This means that it is technically not correct" – Julian
"Other Western European languages like French and Spanish have authoritative bodies on the matter like Académie française or the Real Academia Española, respectively. In English, spellings only become standardized by convention rather than by the ruling of any group. The closest thing we have is perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary which differs importantly in that it's only a descriptive guide to the language rather than a set of prescriptive rulings. Based on this, it would seemingly be excusable to use phonetic spellings. And I would agree that it is" – Baeo
"As for inconsistencies in the dialogue, the truth is humans do not speak consistently. I know I don’t. My pronunciations on words change drastically from sentence to sentence, especially depending on the situation" – Julian
"This would be a good explanation if the inconsistencies seemed to have contextual meaning, but most of them don't. The only other explanation I can think of relies on the natural variation within human speech. My first impression is that the variation would be to big, but I didn't want to say that without research to back it up. Here's the thing though: I can't find any. Yep, I can find no research having to do with the variation of pronunciation within an individual's speech. The closest thing I could find was the Consistency of tone-syllable alignment across different syllable structures and speaking rates. It said that there was actually fairly high consistency, but I'm not sure how applicable that is(considering that it's Mandarin and not really the same sort of pronunciation). So you may be right, but unless you can offer data to back it up I'm not dropping my position on this" – Baeo
"I haven’t seen it done often with simple words like the/de" – Julian
"The sound "th" is notoriously difficult to produce for people who didn't grow up with it. Assuming the characters are speaking some form of BVE(or something similar), the "th" sound should be incredibly difficult for them to speak with. Some of them have been exposed enough to other variants of English(realistically, it would probably be Florida Cracker, which does have dental fricatives) that they might be able to manage a "th" sound if they try(though why they would is a pretty good question), but most of them wouldn't be that exposed" – Baeo
"I have read many books where the dialogue is written out as the character might say it, so it is not some strange thing that only this book does" – Julian
Of course, it's called "eye dialect". But the fact that it's common has nothing to do with it making sense, which it doesn't. I don't want to repeat myself anymore in this post, but if you want an explanation of why I think this, just take a look at my first response to Genevieve.
Baeo seems to have his stuff straight, and I won't debate the technicalities that he has explained, but I cannot help but be frustrated by the inconsistencies in the dialect. I am sure that Hurston had her reasons for writing the dialogue in the exact way she did, but that really doesn't make much of a difference for me, as the perfectioniost that I am. Part of what really bugs me is that, while Hurston phoneticizes some words and terms, the majority of the dialogue is written plainly. Even though I am not an anthropologist and have had, to my knowledge, no experience of the dialect used in the novel like Hurston, I frequently have the overwhelming urge to white out all the dialogue and rewrite it completely using a more complete phoneticization. If Hurston phoneticized some of it, I feel that she should have phoneticized as much of it as to be as authentic as possible. I realize that this is an unrealistic expectation, but that does not preclude my desire for this to be true.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Hurston could have captured the dialect perfectly and I, among others, just do not realize due to lack of experience with the dialect. If this is true, than that group of people stuck on the inconsistencies is missing out on an appreciation of the quality of the writing, a situation that, had she wished, Hurston could have easily avoided by ignoring the whole concept of using dialect. However, she did not, and I can only imagine that she used it for exactly the reason that is so apparent on this thread: discussion and debate.
Hi all. Michael Ditmore, Maybeck English teacher here. I’m a little concerned that the discussion on dialect is developing more heat than it should be. Please consult the link (as well as the follow up links) I’ve provided on the history of dialect in US literature. The issue of dialect is a powerful one and some research, starting with the link would probably help.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, dialect has a powerful and much charged political role. The expunging of minority dialects, as well as minority language speakers, developed as a goal in the early history of the nation state as a way of unifying the citizens of a state and of expunging what were seen to be undesirable elements within a population. Just as early nation states worked to expunge dialects and speakers of dialect (the Tudor and subsequent British efforts to expunge the Irish language and people, as well as US efforts to expunge the languages and the native peoples of the US has a common root in the desire to ensure cultural conformity and unity), the nation states of the 19th century strove mightily to expunge dialects within the standard language. This is one of the historical reasons you are taking an English class every semester in High school to standardize your speech and in particular your writing into the dialect know as “standard written English.”
The fact is that there is no escaping dialect. No matter what you do or how strenuously you try to conform to a “standard” speech, you are speaking a dialect. The standard speech itself is a dialect. Dialect has long been used to brand speakers of dialect inferior and uneducable. In Robert McNeil’s The Story of English, which tracks the growth of English dialect throughout history, the author makes a point of defining a language as “a dialect with an army and a navy.” In other words, defining a dialect as a language is simply an expression of the power held by the speakers of that dialect.
In fact, “standards” for speakers of English are relatively new. They only became prevalent after Noah Webster (the founder of Webster’s dictionary) took on the task of standardizing American English. Similar efforts took place in England at about the same time, producing two somewhat different standards, which explains why in British English “labor” is spelled “labour” as well as numerous other changes. Before Webster, every text reflected the speaker’s pronunciation and there was no standard. This is why Shakespeare, in his will, notoriously spelled his name differently every time he signed it. Now if you’re going to blame Hurston for spelling words differently on different occasions when she represents dialect speech, you also have to tar Shakespeare, Donne, Spenser, Jefferson, and thousands of other pre-standard English writers with that same brush.
Mark Twain is the American writer who made dialect-notation respectable. Prior to Twain, dialect-notation was used to belittle African-American and other American dialects, to denigrate a race of speakers of a wide variety of dialects. Mark Twain, however, presents honest notation of African American speech patterns and puts them into the mouths of characters many of whom readers respect and even grow to love, like Jim in Huckleberry Finn, or even Huck himself. Zora Neale Hurston is the first African American woman novelist, and also a trained and practicing anthropologist, who did field work in Haiti. But she is following in Twain’s footsteps in making literary notation of spoken dialect respectable. To criticize her, or dismiss her work for its use of dialect-notation is to ignore her expertise and to dismiss a whole history of respectful notation of how people actually speak.
Although somewhat unrelated to the topic of the dialogue-style discussion, I wanted to bring up (or revisit, if this was already mentioned) the topic of the narrator's role. I personally think the narrator plays a large role in our perception of the characters and situations. For example, the narrator-it is debatable as to whether it is Janie or simply the author-often takes on the point of view of other characters or parties. When Joe is compared to a repressive "master", the narrator begins speaking in the style of the townsfolk: "And look at the way he painted [his house]- a gloaty, sparkly white...[Then] there was the matter of spittoons...[Didn't] have to get up and go to the door every time he spit. Didn't spit on his floor neither. Had that golded-up spitting pot right handy" (47). Later, the narrator even uses her voice "against" Janie: "Janie had robbed him of his illusion of irresistible maleness that all men cherish, which was terrible. The thing that Saul's daughter had done to David. But Janie had done worse...[The] cruel deceit of Janie!" (79-80). Rather than narrate in Janie's favor or speaking in her point of view, the narrator speaks against her, although it seems almost sarcastic, mocking the absurdity or cruelty of Joe's misogynistic mindset.
ReplyDelete"Now if you’re going to blame Hurston for spelling words differently on different occasions when she represents dialect speech, you also have to tar Shakespeare, Donne, Spenser, Jefferson, and thousands of other pre-standard English writers with that same brush."
ReplyDeleteNo, no I don't. My issue with Hurston's dialogue is one of aesthetics, annoyance in its ostensible lack of realism, and its apparent superficiality. But if I objected to it on the grounds that it used non-standard spellings(which, I'd like to repeat, I don't), I wouldn't need to object to writers who predated the standardized spelling conventions for the same reason I don't dislike Newton for not taking general relativity into account. Also, most modern copies of works that predate widespread use of dictionaries that I've seen have been edited to use modern spellings for the same reason that foreign works are translated into the language of the population they're being sold to. With Hurston, it's completely different. She purposefully used non-standard spellings when a standard existed. Whatever justifications there may be for it, they aren't the same as the justifications of pre-standard writers.
"To criticize her, or dismiss her work for its use of dialect-notation is to ignore her expertise and to dismiss a whole history of respectful notation of how people actually speak."
I don't criticize her for her use of phonetic notation, I criticize her for her use of narrow and superficial phonetic notation. I've never read Twain, but if he used a similar sort of notation, I'd criticize him for it to.
Hurston’s use of a mainstream literary style plays the role of the storyteller, who describes the actions that the characters go through. The other, distinct language allows readers to captivate themselves within the mindsets of the characters. In the following passage, we see an example of how Hurston combines both styles within a narration, which expresses Janie’s actions (mainstream language), as well as what she is thinking (distinct language). “At the newel post Janie whirled around and for the space of a thought she was lit up like a transfiguration. Her next thought brought her crashing down. He’s just saying anything for the time being, feeling he’s got me so I’ll b’lieve him. The next thought buried her under tons of cold futility. He’s trading on being younger than me” (105). The writing in the passage alternates from one style of language to another in an attempt to express the feelings of Janie “he’s got me so I’ll b’liveve him” (150) and her relationship with Tea Cake. I think that the illustration of both types of writing styles are important because the reader is able to understand the significance of the setting that the characters are put through, so that the writing seems more believable. However, the literary mainstream style shows that Hurston is able to appeal to the current audience. I think that Hurston is able to balance both styles of language well throughout the novel and creates a fluent equilibrium, without anyone in the story jumping out of character.
ReplyDeletePlease remember that this forum, the ZNH blog, is not a debating hall. No one should far exceed the number of posts required by the assignment, and there is no need persistently to rebut each other. Constant rebuttals tend to stifle the conversation and make people reluctant to participate. We will have plenty of time during the discussion sessions at the beginning of the year camping trip to discuss our points of view. If any student is unclear about the rules of what is called netiquette, please consult the web site linked here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
Also a reminder: anyone who posts to this blog must have completed a profile with at minimum an email address. I’ve noticed that several students have not complied with this rule. Please do it as soon as possible.
In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston uses a phonetic writing for the dialogues. This makes it very easy to understand the accents and really shows the culture of the characters through the way they speak. In many other books, this would distract the reader away from the plot and make the book harder to understand in general, but in this case, where culture is such an important part of the story, it enhances the plot and gives the reader a very good idea of the characters' individuality through their slightly different accents, as well as their individual cultures (as I said before). The African-Americans are mostly proud of their individuality and maybe Zora Neale Hurston thought it would be a crime not to put that down into writing. In some ways as well, it reflects the education as well. My guess is this way of speaking came about from being illiterate. They would hear the white people saying things with their own accents, dropping some letters, and so they thought it was said that way indefinitely, for example, "chile." When they heard white people saying that, they thought it never had a "d" and did not know that in writing it actually had one. This developed from there and gradually made the accents Zora Neale Hurston decided to write down. As for the mainstream style, it is used to narrate the rest of the stories, the actions and whatnot. It makes the book a bit easier to read than if it had been completely in the phonetic language. It also makes it easier to differentiate dialogues (and thoughts) from the actions and narrations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find that the phonetic nature of Hurston’s writing makes it relatively easy to read once one gets into the flow. Because a lot of the larger chunks of narrative appear when characters are telling a story it makes it easier to imagine these people actually speaking out loud, and thus easier to read the sometimes challenging dialogue. At one point on of the townspeople describes his misbehaving mule: “he wuz. Seen ‘im last night, but Ah couldn’t ketch ‘im. Ah’m ‘bliged tuh git ‘im in tuhnight ‘ cause Ah got some plowin’ fuh tuhmorrow” (55). Although the language hardly uses standardized spelling, it does conform to many typical grammatical standards. The pronoun ‘I’ is replaced with the dialect “Ah”, and thus is always capitalized like one would with ‘I’. Additionally, apostrophes are used appropriately in contractions and to replace missing letters. In her writing Hurston maintains the grammatical rules that prove most critical to understanding the dialogue she writes for her characters, even when writing in dialect.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone; it's Mickey. I apologize for deleting my last comment. I realized that I had more to say and that it made more sense all in one post.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that people are talking about the author's language and also the dialogue. Because of the dialect that the characters speak in, one would think that it would be hard to understand and to transition suddenly from that to perfect grammar and the dialect that we're familiar with when one finishes a bit of dialogue and then starts reading something from the author's point of view. However, I'm found that I don't notice this transition at all. In fact, I only really notice the slang and easy slurring and shortening of words that the characters use when I'm deliberately paying attention to it. I think this is because of what Rose pointed out about how the author maintains the basic rules in grammar throughout the dialogue even though the words themselves are still being shortened, etc. A good example of this is when Janie says, "Naw, Jody, Ah come in heah tuh talk widja and Ah'm goin-tuh do it too. It's for both of our sakes Ah'm talkin'." (85). Although these sentences are written phonetically, as Janie would pronounce it, nothing is out of order. If this was written from Hurston's point of view it would say, "No, Jody, I came in hear to talk with you and i'm going to do it too. It's for both of our sakes that I'm talking." The only part of this bit of dialogue that changed besides the pronunciation when I translated the dialect is that "come" became "came" which is hardly a change at all. I think that the way Hurston wrote the dialogue is brilliant.
I agree 100% with Rose in regards to how the dialect conforms to typical grammatical standards. However, I maintain that this entire discussion in relation to the dialect is rather missing the mark. It doesn’t particularly matter if the dialect makes the writing easier or harder to understand, or if it interrupts or “changes the aesthetic of the novel in an unpleasant manner”. The dialect is there to add depth and realism to the novel. As I and others have said, literature is a form of art. Art should in no way shape or form have to conform to any set of rules. Art need not be easy to understand, nor even pleasant to the reader or viewer. The dialect in the novel allows the reader to get closer to the characters and their culture. It really doesn’t matter if the dialect doesn’t have a set spelling; art is a human affair and we as readers should not hold an author or artist to such artificial standards such as a standard spelling for a dialect. Doing so detracts from the general experience of reading the book as we are spending far too much time on an issue that really doesn’t(in my belief) have much meaning in relation to the book. I care far more about the artistic and cultural meaning of the dialect than I do for the phonetic and grammatical intricacies of its use. The characters speaking the dialect in the novel are of a very different culture than us the readers; it certainly makes sense why Hurston as an anthropologist would choose to write using the dialect. After all, it allows us to broaden our perceptions, and while that may not always be a pleasant or an easy experience, it’s an important one, an experience that helps educate us.
ReplyDeleteI response to Theo, I completely agree. The constant need to criticize the grammatical choices of an writer, artist, storyteller show the same superficial thoughts a viewer of a painting would have commenting on the decision of an artist in his use of velvet as a painting surface rather than canvas. Not only does the argument not touch on the actuall meaning of the painting, it brings up a completely unnessacary point, for it in the end was the decision of the artist. An artist makes choices that a reader or a viewer must accept and take for its full value, rather than tearing it to pieces in an attempt to justify ones dislike for the medium, be it velvet or non-standardized dialect.
ReplyDeleteThere were multiple times throughout the novel where certain passages particularly stood out to me. Looking back on them they all share a common theme, they are not just based on the dialect, but based on the phrases or sayings contained within the dialogue. These passages I found to be the most interesting and genuine in the novel. For example early on in the text Janie’s grandmother words or wisdom read “Hmph! Don’t spect all dat tuh keep up. He ain’t kissin’ yo’ mouf when he carry on over yuh lak dat. He’s kissin’ yo foot and ‘tain’t in uh man tuh kiss foot long. Mouf kissin’ is on uh equal an dat’s natural but when dey got to bow down tuh love, dey soon straightens up. (23)” The dialect adds to the saying, but in essence the old ladies words ring true, she was using an old phrase, and in the context of the novel, it makes it more realistic and enjoyable. Another brilliant example of a realistic phrase is “Whut ah don’t lak about de man is, he talks tuh unlettered folks wid books in his jaws. (49)” this phrase justifies exactly when the “unlettered” man was talking about. This illiterate man is so clearly illiterate, for he doesn’t even know the word. And the phrase “wid books in his jaws” perfectly explains his literacy in a more simple form of language. The dialect adds greatly to these phrases, but in essence they stand apart from the other parts of the novel in that they add a deeper more realistic sense to the novel.
ReplyDelete"By switching between the rich dialect spoken by Janie and Hurston’s own style of writing, the author seems to remove herself from the story..."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Olivia's comment above, I believe that despite Hurston's level of education, which was a very prestigious one (she attended Howard University in Washington, D.C.) she is still able to convey the deep accent and meaning of what one could describe as "Southern" english. The use of accents and italics helps the reader realize what needs an emphasis and why it needs one. This makes the whole novel much more meaningful to I think, Hurston and the reader. Her use of language conveys the experiences she went through that Janie is now going through.
One point where I disagree (and agree) with Olivia is where she points out that Hurston has removed herself from the story. Many authors do try to remove themselves in order to avoid a various number of things such as judgment and persecution, however I feel that Hurston's voice is very much present in her writing. Hurston's father was the Mayor of an all black town growing up. Knowing this as a true to life experience, Hurston seems to have an easier time putting it down on paper. Her experiences as a young girl, as well as Janie's experiences in the novel, seem to meld together to create a novel containing all of their stories.
Kara, a while back you posted in response to Alicia, talking about how Hurston chooses her words very carefully. I think this is because when people are reading, they sometimes have the habit of not totally paying attention, but when you’re switching between beautiful descriptions and rough accented dialogue, you really have to pay attention. It’s possible that Hurston had this in mind, as a tool for holding a reader’s interest.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Kira's post. I totally agree with what she was saying. Some parts in the book I drifted off due to the dialogue. But I agree that it makes you pay attention more. The words she used really made the book unique, and it made me stay with it through the entire novel.
ReplyDeleteHi, this is Ben Gordon-Pound, a new incoming sophomore.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Theo's most recent post, I could not agree more. For one to believe that there ought to be a set of rules and limits around what one is capable of achieving with art is inconceivable.
With the above in consideration, literature is a style of art that has the ability to take the reader to any desired destination, to introduce them to any type of person, to present an infinite amount of situations, to speak in any language or tone.Alternating from a mainstream tone while narrating to a southern, african-american accent unique to only one area in the world was a successful style for Hurston to use. The alternation of tones gave the book an added layer of depth and veracity. By using this style, Hurston succeeded in making it seem as if the reader was part of the situation, part of the conversation, as if they were standing right there next to the character speaking.
The tone of writing is a key factor in what makes a book. If all books were written in one monotonous, universal tone, then literature would be one dimensional and, quite frankly, boring. Hurston executed the balance between language and tone quite well throughout her novel, giving the book a name of its own, and a large degree of uniqueness.
At first, one may find Hurston's abstruse style of writing frustrating to read. However, after becoming more acquainted with each character, the language barrier falls, and it becomes a fantastic, painless read. This goes to show how large, and what kind of an effect Hurston's writing styles had on her book. They were enlightening, expanding the realm of what the reader has the ability to explore substantially.
Hurston's use of language in the story between each character is very interesting to read because the reader can easily determine the character relationships by the way each character speaks or does not speak. Also going into this book, I thought I would not like it and it would be a struggle to get through the Hurston uses beautiful poetic language to depict images of love and peoples relationship, which I ended up really enjoying.
ReplyDeleteMy mind was going into overdrive when reading and trying to understand the dialect in this book, but after the first 20 pages or so I finally started to understand what they were saying. Also, there literary devices in were infinite and some of them made very little to no sense to me. The similes metaphors and personification was incredibly dynamic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Todd's comment on the language's affect on the over all story. Personally I like it because it helps me understand their culture more thorougjly. Not only that but it create a distinct enviornment for the reader to experience outside of the typical writing style that we are used. Also in comparison to the last book we read, huckelberry fin, this book is similar in a way but one of the differences that I saw was the amount of metaphors used and a lot more dialogues that make the book interesting to read. Another thing that I noticed was that the narration was for the most part grammatically correct unlike the conversations. Last but not least, the book contains a lot of humorous ideas, and thoughts that make the book more entertaining.
ReplyDeleteHi it's Ian. One thing I would like to comment on is the representation of various subjects in the book. For instance, near the end of the book, when the hurricane strikes, Lake Okechobee floods over its dykes and begins to smash its way through the neighborhood:
ReplyDelete"Ten feet higher and as far as they could see the muttering wall advanced before the braced-up waters like a road crusher on a cosmic scale. The monstropolous beast had left his bed. The two hundred miles an hour wind had loosed his chains. He seized hold of his dikes and ran forward until the quarters; uprooted them like grass and rushed on after his supposed to-be conquerors, rolling the people in the houses along with other timbers. the sea was walking the earth with a heavy heel."
Hurston describes the lake as a monster that frees itself from its ties and leads a rampage against those that sought to bind it. This makes the scene easier to visualize, so that you can better understand what Janie and Tea Cake are experiencing. (And, as Abraham said, this also makes the reading more interesting.)
Hey guys. There may be more than one place that this happens, but I could only find one place. On page 60 Hurston says, "our departed citizen" instead of "their departed citizen," and "our most distinguished citizen" instead of "their most distinguished citizen" when referring to the mule's death. I'm not sure if she's trying to speak about it the way that she's imagining Starks said it, if she's trying to speak about it the way that Janie said it to Phoebe when telling the story, or if it's just a typo, but I find it very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting how, even though there is very minimal interaction between white and black characters in this book that the dialect of the few white characters is so similar to that of the African American ones. Since they are living in the same general area it makes sense that they use the same dialect but I guess I was just expecting it to be different because of other books such as Huckleberry Finn where the white characters speak very differently from the black ones. After the hurricane several white men force Tea Cake to work. One of them says, “Come on less go bury some uh dese heah dead folks. Dey ain’t gittin’ buried fast enough” (170). The dialect is basically the same as any of the main characters. They say ‘heah’ instead of here just like Tea Cake or another African American character would. It does makes sense because they are all from the same region, I just found it sort of unexpected.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the white men did have different accents, but since Janie must have heard about that incident from Tea Cake, and since the story is being told by Janie to Pheoby, the dialect is changed to match hers. Or maybe Hurston didn't have very much familiarity with the accents of white Florida men, so she just used the accent she was most familiar with.
ReplyDeleteSome white men, like Mr. Prescott, do use a much more elevated diction than the African Americans, while others like the doctor are somewhere in between, which makes me think that it's possible that the white men really do talk like Janie. But then, Luke could also be right, that Janie is just quoting Tea Cake.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ian's most recent post, I agree. Hurston could have easily said "There was a big wave, and it broke through the dykes," but she instead used much more lively, almost mythic language. Chances are that someone's already mentioned this, but I'd just like to say that the descriptions of nature in TEWWG are some of my favorite parts of the book; even if I don't always fully understand what Hurston means, I generally get a "feeling" or "sense" of the scene being described, rather than an intellectual understanding. I want to say the language is visceral, but I'm not sure if that would be a correct use of the word.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Theo’s last comment on the 24th. Like him I believe that Hurston’s dialogue is what makes the book so unique. The language draws the reader into the world of the Deep South, and, more importantly, into Janie’s story. It’s true that in some ways, because of is so different from what we are accustomed to as readers, it can create a distance between the text and the reader. A distance that must be breached in order to fully understand what one is reading. The book requires closer reflection than one might usually spend on analyzing a text. One might have to linger a while on certain passages to fully understand their meaning. In this way it is through its language that the book demands closer reflection and thought, and thus it is thorough language that Hurston offers an accessible way into analyzing the book that wouldn’t exist otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do tend to agree on some level with a lot of the comments which state that the novel is more slightly challenging to read due to the phonetic spelling and changes in dialect. At the same time, I think that because Hurston does describe key events through the voice of the (more easily understood) narrator and because her writing has a poetic sort of repetition to it, I haven't felt like I'm missing elements of the novel due to the language.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I feel like the language tends to provide a clear sense of setting throughout the book, and because Janie does travel quite a bit, it seems to give each of her locations a distinct tone.
I agree with Aysha that the different dialects provide a different distinct tone to each location that Janie visits, as different dialects kind of do in real life.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Aysha and Gabe, but I think that the different dialects make the book even harder to read because you need to give a lot of extra thought about what the characters are saying to fully understand it.
ReplyDeleteI think Abby's point that certain characters are far easier for us to understand is completely true. I definitely find a lot of the characters that Janie meets who present a "big city persona", like Joe Starks, for example, easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me wonder however, about the intended audience of the novel, and how depending on dialects that we're used to, we find it easier to understand the speech of various characters more easily.
I find it interesting that Janie is, for me, one of the easiest characters to understand dialogue wise. Her phrasing is often either more straightforward, or quite oddly poetic. This makes her language a bit clearer then the others' who often use unfamiliar phrasing as well as unfamiliar wording. The sections of the book in which Janie has a lot of dialogue are more enjoyable than the other sections for this reason, I think.
ReplyDeleteIn response to people saying some characters are easier to understand than others, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Hurston wrote very distinct voices for each of her characters. There are characters like Janie who, once you get in the flow of things, are pretty easy to understand, and others whose so-called dialects require a lot more effort. As well as being based on where they come from I think it really has to do with who they are, because the ways in which each character talks is extremely true to the kind of person they are as well as their origins. I like that distinction between characters, I felt in really brought them to life further.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luci's comment on the very different tones of characterization that Hurston uses. With the addition of my imagination, I find their voices believable in my head because it seems to like this is happening in motion picture expect in my head. Just as Luci said Hurston gives every character their role of the story, in this case a puzzle. Some characters have power so their voices sound much more articulated and intense, along with the language. People like Motor Boat, funny dude, have voices that sound so drunk they can't even speak.
ReplyDeleteso overall I feel satified with the way hurston has arranged the language to fit every character.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Zora Neale Hurston's eloquent use of metaphors and third person narrative that weaves with Jodie's life story that she is telling Phoebe. Their Eyes Were Watching God definitely has significant and amazing dialogue that is well written. While it can be challenging to read such a southern accent it really allows the reader to imagine the characters and get into the story. The language of the metaphorical yet plain narrative mixed with the intense dialogue between characters also shows a strong difference and even strengthens the dialogue. The fact that a significant portion of the book is a story being told to Phoebe makes the book very interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn the story, I notice that there’s quite a difference between when the characters are speaking to each other and when the narrator tells the story in more formal English. Janie is a character that a lot of the others in the story envy and are jealous of her. These emotions become apparent in the dialect passages. On the other hand: the narrated passages are more compassionate and more defending of Janie and her situation. It’s almost as if the dialect passages give a more “in the moment” experience to the story while the narration tries to shape it out more or make sense of it all. The narrator describes the gossips on the front porch by describing it as “it was mass cruelty. A mood come alive. Words walking without masters; walking all together like harmony in a song” (2).
ReplyDeleteA lot of people enjoyed the southern accent that Zora Neale Hurston uses thought out the novel. I agree with many that the use of the accent adds more character and it allows you to imagine the situation and dialogs better. The accent gives a since of color to the dialog, one may say. I feel as though that they increased the character of the novel but decreased the flow. This was due to the difficulty in reading the accent. Though I did not enjoy the accent, I must say that it was very well portrayed.
ReplyDeleteThough the accent wasn’t very enjoyable for me, Zora made up with her use of words and her construction of metaphors. Her metaphors painted an image that Zora wanted the reader to feel. When Tea Cake asked her to go down with him to the everglades Zora uses a metaphor. “So her soul crawled out form it’s hiding place” (28). I feel although that Tea Cake was getting her to come out of her comfort zone. Even since the first time they met, Tea Cake was doing the opposite of what Stark did. We especially saw this though his supportive attitude when they first met. But out of all the metaphors in the book the opening two paragraphs were the strongest. With her uses of words, Zora makes you feel what she means. You especially feel it when she said “The dream is the truth” (1). With her words Zora gives you a compelling and clear image of what she wants to convey to the reader.
I noticed that in this book the dialogue is written in the local, sort of, dialect. This might make it harder to leave, but it also makes sense. If the dialogue were written with perfect grammar people’s personalities would be lost and so would the differences between classes, races, and genders. For example Pheoby says “Maybe so, Janie. Still and all Ah’d love tuh experience it for just one year. It look lak heben tuh me from where Ah’m at.” This wording not only lets us see how she talks, but it also denotes her status. She isn’t very well educated because her grammar is incorrect in several places and she has a strong southern accent, so she’s a local. Also it allows the reader to delve more deeply into Janie’s world because they get to see how people talk, what words they use. People talk the way that people talk, and nothing’s going to change that. Would the world be the same if everyone spoke perfect english? No. It would be boring. Monotonous. The language Zora uses gives her world a texture for the reader to feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emiko, the language makes the characters pop and feel much more real. Without it, things would certainly feel more bland, but I wanted to pose the question, if everyone talks the same strange way, (as it seems most characters do) does it still add to the characters? Or does it begn to take away from them?
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Lucas said, I do think the language becomes kind of a unifying thing that all the characters share. I don't think the language takes away from the characters, but it also definitely doesn't make them distinct or unique. Also, I understand why Hurston put the dialect in the novel, because it makes the writing feel more real and legitimate, but it is sometimes hard to read and having to interpret what the characters are saying sometimes distracts from the impact of their words.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Simone that the dialect does indeed add to the characters. I think it gives them a much greater sense of humanity. Having the rest of the novel written very eloquently, and often, as others were saying, poetically, when a character does speak in their dialect it brings us back to reality, and this contrast causes us to focus more on both the dialogue in the novel, as well as the parts when it is just Hurston narrating.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the dialect adds to the character and the overall feeling of the novel. Though in the beginning it is hard to get used to, it gets much easier and for me, the dialect, though different to what we are used to, wasn't an issue after reading a little bit into the novel. Without this giant contrast between the third person and the character's language, I think the novel would be missing a great part of it that makes it its own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ami (and all the others) that the dialect adds a lot to the story. At first I found it hard to read, so I was reading it out loud. But the dialect really helped me to get to know the characters and it really tells you about them, where they're from, how educated they are, what kid of slang they use. The book would be a whole lot less interesting without it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlrighty. I've noticed a lot of talk about how frustrating the phonetic spelling is in the novel. I enjoyed reading Baeo's side as to why he found it annoying and he does make a valid point. HOWEVER! I loved the phonetic spelling because it added character to the novel. I feel as though the language is so important to a novel, it adds (or takes away) so much of the novel itself. The language, as well as the other elements of the novel, really give you insight into the time that the novel was written and how people acted and spoke. I loved getting that insight into Hurston's style of writing.
ReplyDeleteI think the phonetic speaking really serves to reinforce the difference between Janie's private thoughts and what she says. Within her own mind, her thoughts are expressive and meaningful. However, she betrays none of this through dialogue, keeping her thoughts to herself. An example of this contrast is on page 77, where she notices that Jody is aging significantly. As she is looking at him, the thinks to herself "There was already something dead about him. He didn't rear back in his knees any longer. He squatted over his ankles when he walked. That stillness at the back of his neck. His prosperous-looking belly that used to thrust out so pugnaciously and intimidate folks, sagged like a load suspended from his loins." In comparison, when she is addressing the issue out loud on page 79, she says "Talkin' 'bout me lookin' old! When you pull down yo' britches, you look lak de change uh life." Janie's thoughts as developed by the narrator are much more eloquent than her actual dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caleb, I also noticed that the dialectic wording is reserved almost entirely to dialogue, while the rest of the narrative is written quite gracefully in perfect english.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this book it is like 100 times easier to read than Huck Fin and is a compelling story. Hurston's use of language and poetry is beautiful but sometimes leads to confusion so I can see how people are getting confused but once you figure it out you realize its amazing, or I did.
ReplyDeletei agree with Julian that the southern accent adds a lot of depth to the book. though it can sometimes be a little hard to understand, it is almost always possible to find the meaning. it really adds character to the story.
ReplyDeletethe unique accent really helps shove me into the story, and often times I'll keep on reading, completely absorbed in the book, forgetting about other obligations.
i agree with Carrie, that you can defiantly tell a lot about the characters from the way they speak, not only from their accents, however, but also from the kinds of things they will say.
For example, while Tea Cake would says "dat's 'cause ah'm dumb." (95), however Jake would not say anything like that, as he never says anything bad about himself at all in the book.
and, like many other people have said, the book wouldn't be the same without the heavy southern accent.
-Michael Birkhead
In response to Michael Ditmore:
ReplyDeleteThank you for giving some background to the language within this text. As in all the previous summer readings, particularly Huck Finn and Grapes of Wrath the vernacular of the characters has not only helped to mold their personalities and furnish setting but also provid us with introspection on how we speak today. Their Eyes Were Watching God is no different, the cadence of Tea Cake, Janie, and the rest of the characters weave a both vivid and socially conscious perspective that modern Oxford English would fail to encapsulate.
hello,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Play on word's views that this book is easier to read than Huck Finn. in HF, i ran into some parts that where extremely dull to the point of putting down the book and doing something else, but in this book there are very few parts that had nearly the same effect. this book is does a lot better job at holding in the reader, and i think that it's use of language is part of that. for one thing, i had a much easier time understanding these character's accents than in HF, which left me confused at times.
I agree with Hero about the dialogue. Though it may be inconsistent and unconventional, as Baeo has pointed out, I think that it is an important and necessary part of the novel.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Hero. She said what I already attempted to say, but much more eloquently.
ReplyDelete