الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 264 |  |  |
| | | from | 264 | | |
Abstract
Power and dominance constitute significant aspects of many recurring interactions such as those between whites and blacks, adults and children, and men and women. It should not be surprising then, the distribution of power in the occupational structure, the family division of labour, and other institutional contexts of society have their parallel in the dynamics of everyday interaction. According to the conversational context and certain social factors, such as, gender and status, there will be definite patterns by which men and women are exercised the linguistic dominance during the speech.
Frow (1985, p. 204), for instance, says that power ’’invests all discourse” and Tannen (1989, p.147) argues that “every utterance displays power “. Furthermore, Fairclough (1989) has laid much more emphasis on the power / language relation. He identifies two forms of such a relation, power in discourse and power over discourse, and gives elaborated illustrations of both forms.
Power in discourse, on the one hand is concerned with discourse as a place where relations of power are actually exercised and enacted. Power relations in discourse are found between social groupings in institutions, between women and men, between ethnic groupings, between young and old, which are not specific to particular institutions. Power over discourse, on the other hand, is deeper and more obvious than dominance power which is exercised within a conversational context. This type of power lies in the effect of discourse on the minds of others over long periods of time. It is also called as hegemonic or social power .As van Dijk points out ’’Much power in society, however, is not coercive, but rather mental. Instead of controlling the activity of others directly by bodily force, we control the mental basis of all action.’’(1997, pp.16-7)
It is clear from what is mentioned about the power in discourse that, there are certain situations where some participants can control the turns of other speakers. Also, the powerful interlocutors may express desirable or undesirable effects on the powerless speakers when they control them. This type of dominance is less than other types of relations in power, force and the amount of intensity found in language. We can identify the dominance relationships which occur in the two plays under investigation within the correlative social context by taking into consideration the following characteristics as stated by Weber (1968, p.214)
Firstly, powerful persons express their assertiveness and self-confident on the powerless speakers, so those who are controlled by dominants showing obedience and satisfaction towards their orders. Secondly, powerless interlocutors, in a particular interaction, express their willingness to comply for dominant speakers. Thirdly, compliance expresses by powerless participants is not arbitrary or transient, but it generates regular types of dominance relations between those who are involved in a conversation. For example, we can represent husband-wife relationship as dominance-subordination on.
Dramatic discourse is defined as one type of face - to - face interaction. It consists of two pivotal types of elements which are verbal and nonverbal elements. By verbal elements I mean the spoken utterances the characters utter during the interaction. Whereas, nonverbal elements comprise all the stage directions which the dramatist puts in order to support the verbal utterances. Although nonverbal elements are not spoken, nevertheless they consider as one of the important features of the dramatic discourse.
Issacharoff has pointed out that the nonverbal elements are defined as particular ways which complement, clarify and explicate the spoken text. They are closely connected to the speech, despite the fact that their focus is not on the content of the utterances as much as the physical circumstances as conceived by the writer. (1989, p.17) As Adela – Suzana asserts nonverbal communication is not only crucial in a daily communication situation but also for the analyst. Nonverbal communication can take various forms, such as, tone of voice, vocalizers, body movements, facial expressions and pauses. (Adela, n.d., pp. 776 - 779).
Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams are two of the twentieth century playwrights (see sample analysis). They dealt with the characters as a part of their society. They shape their dramatic discourse in such a way in order to show the bad effects of the American society after the Second World War on the people’s relations and as a result on their interactions whether publically or privately. In short, these plays portray conflicts, contradictions, and inequality positions which the characters occupy in certain occasions.
This study focuses on the achievement of the concept of ‘dominance’ linguistically. That is, the linguistic elements by which the interlocutors convey an effective, influential and powerful messages. Due to the fact that dominance is one linguistic concept which is closely related and affected by the pragmatic aspect of the language, the researcher selects the theory that is fitting the requirements of the concept at issue. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is one approach which examines the social issues are related to the lives of people at a particular period of time. Specifically, Fairclough’s theory collects the three functions of Halliday; the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual functions. In addition to the certain factors of the ‘Interactional control features’, such as turn-taking, topic control, politeness etc. Hence, it involves the three essential sorts of language which are syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
Throughout the investigation of the two dramas, I was confronted with the problem that Miller’s drama consists of act one and act two and it is impossible to deal with the act as one speech event. Thus, the researcher divides it into particular speech events and apply Hymes’ model components to analyze each speech event. Then I apply the same method with the second drama which is divided into eleven scenes. Depending on the participants, the researcher divides the play into four crucial speech events involving the whole elven scenes so as to accomplish the idea of unity the writer wants to convey for his readers.
To sum up, the researcher examines linguistic dominance from its broader sides i.e., the social sides; dominance has its own definition which is identified by each system separately, but linguistically it can be determined by the following factors:
1-The significance of the way one person phrases his utterances.
2-The activity type which is related to the practices the speaker does as a social activity, for example lecturing on linguistics is an activity. Action, on the other hand represents the immediate type of action which happens during the interaction, for example informing something about linguistics is an action.
3-Identities; as a doctor is different from being a patient.
4-Relationships; formal relationship distinguishes from informal relation.
5-Presenting social goods; which means the moral properties and social status; how our sentences has implications for building or destroying social relationships also how can I treat one person as a respectful person or not. Moreover, it constitutes the social position and self-esteem.
6-Connections; they are focusing on how one participant uses the connectives. This is related to the grammatical cohesion using words such as conjunction, repetition etc. or it is related to coherence how the speaker makes connection for example between two points such as malaria and poverty without using the connective words, I mean they are understandable from the context.
7-Distinctive marks of language; each language has different varieties and these varieties can identify the importance of using different dialects by one character, for example the vernacular English VS Standard English. It also involves the noticeable language of lawyers, doctors etc. This point also involves the non-verbal system of communication.