Theme and Narrative Elements in the Short Story Essay

Theme and Narrative Elements in the Short Story - Essay Example In order to bring out the theme of a story clearly, the author uses the characters, action, setting and various elements of literature (Guerin, 2005). The Necklace applies irony to express the theme of poverty and social class in society. Mathilde is born in a family of employees, and the author describes her as a person with no choice of what she wanted. The author describes her as a person with no means of being known, loved, understood, or getting married to a rich man. The theme is enhanced by the fact that she was forced to get married to a little clerk working in the Education Ministry. The title of the story, â€Å"The Necklace† creates a desire for the reader to know why the title was used. The necklace she borrowed, as the story continues, becomes the source of conflict in the story. The literary element of irony in the story has contributed greatly to the buildup of the theme in the story. There are various instances in the story where irony is evident. Mathilde thou ght of herself living in delicacy and luxury, but throughout the story, she has been depicted as a poor woman and wife. Mathilde and her husband have been in debt for a period of ten years. This is after she lost her friend’s diamond necklace, which she had to pay. She came to learn later the necklace was not original diamond and she could have rather said the truth than buying a new one. She lived her life thinking of all the best things in life, which she admired, but did not have. She had a long-time rich friend whom she did not want to go and see anymore. This literary element of irony has enhanced the theme of poverty and social classes. Mathilde could no longer visit her rich friend because of their differences in social class. Her friend was a rich person whereas she was extremely poor and always in distress. The author to depict the socially classified society of Parisian in the 1880s may have used this literary element of irony. When her husband comes home one day ex pecting to make his wife happy, Mathilde is angry. He comes with a card inviting them to a party at the ministry’s palace. However, Mathilde is not happy because she does not have a nice dress to wear. She ends up compelling her husband to buy her a dress with the money he wanted to buy a gun. Mathilde is not satisfied with her status, but wants to look like the rest of the women. This instant of irony indicates how social class influences people in poverty. Use of characterization in the story has enhanced the portrayal of the theme of poverty and social class. The character of Mathilde is portrayed as a person who is not contented with what she has. She is always dreaming of having a nice and luxurious apartment, with rooms decorated with oriental tapestries and lightened by bronze lamps on the floor. Her unsatisfactory character finally lands her in trouble after borrowing a diamond necklace from Forester. Mathilde is totally unsatisfied and unhappy with all she has and sh e is looking for material things throughout her life. Her character of always dreaming and desiring things she cannot afford made her to appear arrogant and stuck-up when she refuses to attend the party because she does not have a dress and the right jewelry. All this is set in Parisian, which creates the atmosphere of the story. The setting enhances the theme of poverty and social class, which was rampant in the area of setting in the 1880s. Looking at the efforts of Loisel to please his

Bilingual Acquisition in Early Childhood

Bilingual Acquisition in Early Childhood Are bilingual children two monolingual children in one? Discuss. Research into bilingual acquisition in early childhood has investigated whether infants and toddlers brought up in bilingual settings can be said to have a single language system during the initial stages of language acquisition or whether these early bilinguals develop two separate language systems from the start. If the latter can be shown to be the case, it could be argued that bilingual children are indeed two monolingual children in one. However, there has been considerable debate over the merits of both claims for some period of time. This essay will consider the arguments and some of the evidence put forward in support of both points of view. Researchers differentiate between two languages acquired from birth (simultaneous bilingual acquisition) and the acquisition of a second language during early childhood. Research, intending to address the question of developing bilingual language systems in the infant, focuses on simultaneous bilingual acquisition. Although as Lanza points out it isn’t always easy to decide on â€Å"the cut-off point between first language acquisition and early second-language acquisition.† [1] The language environment, with both parents speaking both languages or the adoption of a one language one parent approach, is also a consideration. It is often pointed out that bilingual children acquire their languages in much the same way as monolingual children acquire theirs. Pearson and colleagues testing the acquisition of vocabulary found that â€Å"differences in average vocabulary size (between the bilingual and monolingual children in their study) across the age range tested were relat ively small.†[2] Studies of childhood bilingual development have shown that in almost all cases, children mix elements from the two languages they are acquiring. This has lead to claims that in the early stages of acquisition bilingual children have a single language system. Code mixing may involve any aspect of the child’s language system i.e., phonetic, lexical, phrasal, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Code mixing is not limited to children. Many researchers have investigated the phenomenon of code mixing or switching in adult bilinguals. However, there are important differences between the two. Adult code switching is rule governed. â€Å"What is thought to distinguish bilingual children’s mixing from adult mixing is the lack of systematicity or compliance to linguistic rules in the case of children.† [3] The fact that mixing declines with age has been cited as evidence that the child originally had one system that gradually separates into two. The period of mixing is followed by language differentiation sometime during the bilingual child’s third year. Volterra and Taeschner’s seminal paper interpreting code mixing in terms of a three-stage model of a single language system has had numerous supporters and critics. [4] A growing number of researchers have published papers in the past couple of decades supporting a two-language system. In 1985 Vihman looked at a bilingual Estonian/ English child. Having pointed out that there was insufficient data concerning the child’s comprehension skills in both languages to confirm whether or not he had a single system: â€Å"It seems likely that two receptive stores did exist in a rudimentary form even at this earliest stage, however, since comprehension appeared to develop rapidly in both English and Estonian contexts well before the development of a wide-ranging productive vocabulary.† [5] Considerable research has shown that monolingual children develop comprehension before production skills. The author agreed with Lindholm and Padilla[6] that â€Å"bilingual children are able, from an early age, to differentiate their two systems†. [7] Genesee also found evidence of â€Å"differentiated underlying language systems† in his study of early bilinguals. He argued that â€Å"bilingual children are able to differentiate their language systems from the beginning and that they are able to use their developing language systems differentially in contextually sensitive ways.† [8] Paradis and Genesee concluded the bilingual children in their study developed entirely distinct pronoun system for the two languages. [9]Their research therefore supports the separate language hypothesis. Likewise, Quay’s study of an English/ Spanish bilingual child â€Å"provides no evidence for the two-stage model of lexical development proposed by Volterra and Taeschner.† [10] Empirical and Interpretative Difficulties Methodology Most researchers criticise the methodology used by previous researchers in the field. Diary studies of a single child are common making any generalisation difficult. Other factors making comparison and therefore generalisation difficult include: the differing exposure to the languages experienced by each child, their different language backgrounds and history, the different methods of language sampling undertaken by the various researchers, and the fact that to date there is no standardised measurements to compare children at various stages of bilingual development. Furthermore, diary studies may be insufficient to accurately reflect the linguistic competence of the child studied, regardless of whether or not the findings can be shown to be valid for other bilinguals. â€Å"Diary data may not capture all translation equivalents.† [11] Quay also points out that studies making use of audio and video recordings tend not to make them frequently enough: â€Å"Infrequent recordings for a short duration each time do not allow for conclusive evidence with regard to bilingual children’s ability to produce translation equivalents.†[12] Radford reviewing Paradis and Genesee (1996) remarks on a methodological shortcoming noted in many other studies, the use of a small corpus of data: â€Å"This might lead us to the conclusion that PG simply didn’t have enough data from enough children to support the sweeping theoretical claims that they make.†[13] Pearson and colleagues also criticize the emphasis on case studies â€Å"a form in which systematic comparisons with other children are not generally attempted.† [14] Their own research compared the language development of 25 English/ Spanish bilinguals with 35 monolinguals: â€Å"Without detailed information from a wide range of children, it is difficult to gain a broad perspective on what is typical and what is exceptional in early bilingual development.†[15] Radford states, â€Å"much of the evidence VT (Volterra and Taeschner) bring to bear in support of their claim that children start out with a common syntax for their two languages is based to a large extent on code-mixing.†[16] He suggests the fact that bilingual children are known to code mix cannot be seen as evidence for a single language system because adult also code switch and they are â€Å"generally assumed to have separate grammars for each language.† However, as has been stated earlier, children do not code mix in the way adults do. More problematic for supporters of the single language system is the finding by Genesee and colleagues that code mixing in early bilinguals is not as common as Volterra and Taeschner claim.[17] These researchers discovered that code mixing takes place in only 1%-7% of bilingual children’s utterances. Like Radford, Genesee claims that there are serious methodological and interpretative shortcomings with much research into simultaneous bilingualism. In order for the single system hypothesis to be valid, bilingual children would need to â€Å"use items from both languages indiscriminately in all contexts of communication.†[18] However, as Genesee makes clear, most research in the field has failed to analyse the data by context. Volterra and Taeschner for example, present isolated examples of the child addressing one parent only.[19] Vihman did look at her bilingual child’s utterances in context but she focused on one language only.[20] If the appearance, then decline, of code mixing in early bilingual development is not necessarily evidence of a single language system, what other factors may be responsible for the phenomenon? Vihman (1985) argues that the decline in mixing has more to do with the bilingual child gaining in sociolinguistic competence than evidence of the separation of language systems.[21] Lanza also suggests a more sociolinguistic explanation for code mixing: â€Å"Children do learn to differentiate their language: however, this differentiation process occurs in language socialisation through which they learn to differentiate ways of speaking according to the social demands of the situation.† [22] Other researchers point out that with the acquisition of more lexical items as the child’s language skills develop, there is less need to borrow between languages (the lexical gap hypothesis).[23] [24] Peterson claims bilingual children switch to their dominant language because they haven’t the lexicon or syntactic structure in the weaker one.[25] Bernardini agrees â€Å" in some young bilingual children†¦with uneven development, having one language that is clearly weaker than the other, sentence-internal code-mixing is a result of uneven lexical development in the two languages.† [26] Pearson and colleagues test the Volterra Taeschner (1978) claim â€Å"if children already have a lexical representation for a concept in either language, they will not be motivated to learn or use the word’s translation in the other.†[27] This follows Clark’s principle of contrast, which predicts an absence of synonymy in early lexical development in both monolingual and bilingual children.[28] Pearson and colleagues found no evidence to support Volterra Taeschner in their study of 27 early bilinguals. Quay also found â€Å"no foundation for the principle of contrast in (the) bilingual case (studied).† Quay points out â€Å"most studies do not take into account whether young bilinguals have the lexical resources to make a choice between their two languages.† [29] According to Grosjean one language may be dominant because the child is exposed to that language more frequently and needs it to communicate with more people.[30] Serratrice defined â€Å"language dominance in terms of the amount of input the child receives†. [31]It has been pointed out by a number of researchers that mixing may be linked to the child’s speech environment. [32] The bilingual child might code mix because he hears his parents or other adults doing so. It has been argued the â€Å"best way to avoid bilingual mixing in children is to have each parent speak only one language to the child.† [33] Quay suggests, â€Å"linguistic input from adult interlocutors must be taken into account in discussions of children’s language choices.†[34] Conclusions It is clear that many factors are involved in simultaneous bilingual acquisition. The debate over whether these young children develop one or two language systems initially has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. As many researchers point out parental input may well prove to be of particular importance. Whether the child has one system or two and thus resembles a single monolingual child or two monolingual children, it is clear that their â€Å"ability to understand two languages may be comparable in each language to monolingual children’s.†[35] Bernardini, P and Schlyter, S (2004) Growing syntactic structure and code-mixing in the weaker language: The Ivy hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 49-70 Clark, E (1987) The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (ed.) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Genesee, F (1989) Early bilingual development: one language or two? Journal of Child Language 16, 161-179 Genesee, F. Nicoladis, E Paradis, J (1995) Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child language 22, 611-630 Grosjean, F (1982) Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge MA: Harvard Uni press Lanza, E. (1992) Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child language 19, 633-657 Lindholm, K and Padilla, A (1978) Child bilingualism: report on language mixing, switching and translations. Linguistics 211, 23-44 Paradis, J. and Genesee, F. (1996). ‘Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: autonomous orinterdependent?’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 1-25. Pearson, B, Fernandez, S and Oller, D 1993. Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: comparison to Monolingual norms. Language Learning 43:1, 93-120 Pearson, B, Fernandez, S and Oller, D 1995. Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 22, 345-368 Pearson, B. Fernandez, S. Lewedeg, V Oller, K (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 41-58 Peterson, J (1988) Word-internal code-switching constraints in a bilingual child’s grammar. Linguistics, 26, 479-493 Quay, S (1995) The bilingual lexicon: implications for studies of language choice. Journal of Child Language 22, 369-387 Radford, A (2005) Children’s English: Principles-and-Parameters Perspectives. University of Essex. Serratrice, L. Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (2007) 1058–1087 1083 Vihman, M. (1985) Language differentiation by the bilingual infant. Journal of Child Language 12, 297-324 Volterra, T and Taeschner, T (1978) The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language 5, 311-326 1 Footnotes [1] Lanza (1992:634) [2] Pearson et al (1993:112) [3] Genesee (1989) [4] Volterra and Taeschner (1978) [5] Vihman (1985:316) [6] Lindholm and Padilla (1978) [7] Vihman (1985:317) [8] Genesee (1989:174) [9] Paradis and Genesee (1996). [10] Quay (1995:385) [11] Quay (1995:382) [12] Quay (1995:383) [13] Radford (2005) [14] Pearson et al (1993:95) [15] Pearson et al (1995:348) [16] Radford (2005) [17] Genesee et al (1995) [18] Genesee (1989:165) [19] Volterra and Taeschner (1978) [20] Vihman (1985) [21] Vihman (1985) [22] Lanza (1992:654) [23] Volterra and Taeschner (1978) [24] Lindholm and Padilla (1978) [25] Peterson (1988) [26] Bernardini and Schlyter (2004:49) [27] Pearson et al (1995:346) [28] Clark (1987) [29] Quay (1995:369) [30] Grosjean (1982) [31] Serratrice (2007) [32] Genesee (1989) [33] Genesee (1989:170) [34] Quay (1995:383) [35] Pearson et al (1993:113)

The Different Development of the New England, Southern, and Middle Colo

The Different Development of the New England, Southern, and Middle Colonies America was a place for dreams and new beginnings, until white people arrived in 1607. Three groups sailed over the treacherous Atlantic from their cruel lives in England to set up peaceful religious colonies. The only problem is that they attempted to settle in their own way and all failed dismally. The New England, Middle and Southern Colonies grew differently over the period 1619-1760.Examining the three sets of colonies will prove that they were all different: socially, economically, politically but not philosophically. Socially the three groups of colonies developed differently. The New England Colonies life was dominated by the Puritan religion. There was strict observation of the Sabbath, people dressed in somber clothing, Christmas and birthdays were not celebrated and religious tolerance was not practiced. People supported each other to create a one-class system: middle class, a homogenous background. In the Middle Colonies the cosmopolitan population celebrated for any reason, wore the latest European Fashions and practiced religious toleration. They had a two-class system of upper class landowners and middle class professionals living in large cities. In the Southern Colonies the plantations and cosmopolitan environment dominated social life. The Southern Colonies had a strict three class system: upper class rich plantation owners, middle class small plantation owners, lower class ...

How Do William Golding and Williams Shakespeare Present Disturbed Characters?

How do William Golding and William Shakespeare present disturbed characters? In Lord of the Flies Golding presents disturbed characters as savage and blood-thirsty. After his own experience in world war two, he seems to believe everybody has a savage personality and thriving which is brought out through an extreme situation. Golding uses the technique of evoking emotion from the reader through the use of innocent children committing unthinkable actions. He conveys his views through the ever growing savage characters of Jack and Roger, whereas Shakespeare presents Lady Macbeth as a mentally disturbed character consumed with an obsession of becoming a part of the hierarchy within society. In the first chapter of Lord of the Flies Golding uses the Island as an allegorical object, presenting the general overview of society and civilisation. The Island can be represented as the Garden of Eden; an innate place of perfection to be undisturbed and civil. It seems to be an idyllic place for some time with rules and order throughout, this is up until it is corrupted and nature is changed by the boys’ savage intentions. This relates to biblical themes of the Garden of Eden once corrupted by mankind (Adam & Eve). We also see a use of pathetic fallacy, the Island in this sense is more important than anything, it foreshadows the events which are beginning to unfold. Throughout both pieces of Literature Shakespeare and Golding use religious beliefs and values; in Macbeth the uses of supernatural creatures like the witches represent a devil like figure. The strong Christian themes in the play and during Elizabethan times made them even more evil, Shakespeare conveys Lady Macbeth as the total opposite of what a women ‘should be’. She knows as a female she is limited because of her gender, she asked to be filled with cruelty which is ironic because she created the plan to kill the King. This point is significant in the quote â€Å"unsex me here†. Similarly you could argue the ‘beast’ brought to the attention of the boys by a ‘littlun’ is equally as important. Simon proposes the beast is only the boys imagination itself, although they laugh off his idea, Simon is central to the novel; he links to Golding’s point of innate human evil which exists. He is the first boy to acknowledge that the ‘beast’ is an external force of human nature. Lady Macbeth is first introduced to us as Macbeth’s loving wife, she seems thrilled to hear of her husband’s progression in social status. Her first reaction is to concoct a plan to kill the king; we are equally as shocked as Macbeth when she â€Å"pours her spirits in thine ear†. This leads us to believe she is a somewhat calculating character. Lady Macbeth then begins to develop into manipulating Macbeth, she uses blackmail such as â€Å"break this enterprise to me? † she weakens Macbeth â€Å"you were a man† implies she does not think of him as being worthy to be called a man. To some extent Lady Macbeth is to blame, as soon as she hears of Macbeth’s news her character is blinded by ambition. Similarly the three witches give Macbeth prophesies leading to the evil plan which is soon presented. The first significant change in their relationship comes when she creates a description of juxtaposition, turning a pure and natural thing into a horrific image; saying she would have â€Å"dash’d the brains out† of their unborn child. Using this hypothetic situation Macbeth is beginning to consider the consequences, she uses pronouns ‘you and I’ implying they are equally as involved and together through all of it. Golding presents the character of Jack as a developing character of savagery throughout the novel. He compares the deterioration of Jack’s civilized and well brought up mind with his lust and instinct to hunt. This is shown when the boys try and outline order on ‘their’ island. Jacks reaction to this is aggressive and intolerant- â€Å"bollocks to the rules! We’re strong- we hunt! †. Here we see that he seems manipulative towards the other characters trying to control them into following him as the leader. When the group of boys head up the mountain our perception as to Jack’s cruelty is further developed. This is shown when Jack is seen to â€Å"snatch the glasses from Piggy’s face†; â€Å"His specs- use them as burning glasses†. Golding uses this cruel streak in Jack so the reader feels sympathetic to lesser characters such as Piggy. The deterioration of civilization on the island first begins with the breaking of the conch, in the novel the conch symbolises rules, like a school bell when the noise sounds it enforces a sense of regulation and order. Secondly the fire symbolises a feeling of hope, it is the one thing that could save them and mean rescue. Contrastingly it represents destruction and corruption, it destroys the idyllic feel of the island first presented to us by Golding. Identity is a main theme in both Lord of the flies and Macbeth, Golding uses the technique of theriomorphism to give Jack animalistic qualities. For example Golding says â€Å"he passed his tongue across his dry lips and scanned the uncommunicative forest† conveying Jack as a primitive character. In other words Golding is beginning to show Jack’s impulsive and has a compulsion to kill, giving the reader an impression of his savage streak emerging. He also uses the word â€Å"uncommunicative† which literally is telling the reader the island is abandoned but foreshadows what is to come. This is an effective word choice because it gives an insight to the communication which causes their downfall. Our understanding of what is to come differs from the previous text ‘Coral Island’ the wildness of the surroundings influences changes in characters such as Jack to take natural animalistic instincts; contradicting the theme of ‘happy endings’ as conveyed in Coral Island. A link between both Lord of the Flies and Macbeth is that both involve a sense of changing identity and deterioration of characters. During Elizabethan times when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, the ‘social-scale’ of class and stature was called the ‘divine right of kings’. External factors of society such as religion and the threat of war makes the actions of a simple Elizabethan wife seem unthinkable. From the beginning of the play onwards, the relationship of Macbeth and his wife is one of equality. Straight away we are aware that Lady Macbeth is highly respected by her husband; â€Å"my dearest partner of greatness† is how he addresses her in the letter. A change of identity is suggested to Macbeth, Lady Macbeth says â€Å"Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower But be the serpent under’t† She is controlling him, telling him to convey a normal front yet be the killer you know you are beneath. Contrastingly Jack uses paint to cover his face in Lord of the Flies, this is a primitive, tribal act in which he can cover his identity and be the hunter he insists upon. As we come to the final scenes of the play, not only can we see a mental deterioration but Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter conveying her as physically and mentally disturbed. During such times ‘mental illness’ was not understood and looked upon as being ‘mad’. In act 3 scene 4 she has changed completely, a doctor and gentle-women observe her as she has clearly become mentally out of control. Lady Macbeth even imagines herself with hands covered with blood, there is a stream of guilt as she shows her fragmented speech reflecting her thoughts and soliloquy â€Å"out, damned spot! I say! †

Domains Of Culture Essay

1. When you think about the origins of Religion and Spirituality in American culture, a lot of different ideas, stories or parables come to mind. But one question is hardly ever asked or even thought of. Does American culture have a religion? More to the point, is there a religion that can solely be sourced to origins on American soil? The answer is yes. Both Mormonism and Scientology have roots deeply planted in American culture. However, around 25,000 Americans practice Scientology and an estimated 6.1 Million Americans practice Mormonism. That makes up 1.8% of Americans, in addition to that most Americans don’t recognize Scientology as a real religion and Mormonism falls under the Christianity branch of belief. So what ideas are truly native the country. I believe you must add Native American Spirituality to this argument as a source of religion truly sourced and founded in America as it is still practiced by a vast majority of living Native Americans. But in order to get t o that we must first talk about the origins of Christianity as it stands with Americans today. 2. As it is true that Christianity is the most prevalent religion in America, It is also true that Christianity was brought to this soil with the first settlers. In England you had two choices for worship, The Roman Catholic Church and The Church of England. Both Christian churches, and theses settlers knew nothing but that so it comes to no surprise that those are the two major influences on American religion and spirituality. It should also be noted that those settlers wanted to distance themselves from England’s brand of religion so badly that the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly lays out the separation of Church and State1. Christianity then splintered off into the various denominations that we have today, yet all of those styles still have the same foundation that can be traced back to Rome or England. Native Americans on the other hand don’t have those same beliefs. While Christianity focuses on a One true Higher Power, Native Americans look more to selection of Spiritual figures known as Deities. 3. Native American culture focuses more on the Earth, Weather, Sky and Sprits who manifest physical form as Deities. Depending on the culture these beings can be attributed to almost everything that is possible or could be possible. In most Native American Cultures there is  always one deity that creates man but, they are not always benevolent. The Abenaki and the Algonquian tribes believe that life was created out wood, stone and other earthly elements by Tabaldak so that the earth could be full. If you follow the Navajo the Earth itself was created by AsdzÄ…Ì Ã„…Ì  Nà ¡dleehà ©, she was also responsible for the stars and sky2. So who is right and who is wrong? No one can say. Most of these deities are created in myths and stories passed down from generation to generation. But the message is the same across the tribes, Give thanks for what we have for it is not always promised. Now that we have an idea as how Native American Culture sees religion, let’s see if matches up with how American Culture sees it. 4. In Conclusion, we have seen how the most prevalent form of spirituality in American in not was actually brought in from England. That religion lays out the idea of a Supreme God who commands from Heaven and is omnipotent. While the Native American Culture has its religious and spiritual roots found on American soil. They champion multiple deities who are responsible everything from creation to the basic things like food and water. The one thing they both have in common is you are expected to be a good wholesome person or you will be judged for you actions. In the afterlife for the Christians or when you just so happen to come across whatever deity you have offended with the Native American Culture. So no matter what you happen to believe in remember to be a good person and be ready to be responsible for your actions. 1 United States History website, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3787.html 2 Wheelwright, Mary C. (2008) [1942]. Navajo Creation Myth: The Story of the Emergence. Forgotten Books. p.17