Explore the range of linguistic and stylistic effects used to bring out the central themes and issues of Brian Friel's play "Translations"

“Owen: Bun na hAbhann

            Yolland: Again

            Owen: Bun na hAbhann

            Yolland: Bun na hAbhann”

Friel uses mapping, both literally and metaphorically, in order to convey his ideas. The actual mapping for the Ordnance Survey is maintained by Owen’s constant gesture of referring to the map which he and Yolland are working from. This is shown in the stage direction “Owen returns to the map.” Gestures such as this are used to great effect by Friel. Mapping is used metaphorically through Hugh’s speech, where, using the semantic field of geography, he talks of a “linguistic contour” and “landscape of…fact”. The metaphor of codes is also used by Friel to express the complexity of language, and to express the idea that although one may learn a language, the true language of a community and the secrets which it holds are often difficult to ‘decode’. However, Friel does offer some hope, as Owen, Manus and Hugh have all learnt to ‘decode’ the English language.

Hugh is a character who, although is slightly self-deluded, is also a learned person. He speaks with intelligence, and always in Standard English; “I like to think we endure around truths immemorially posited.” Hugh often uses linguistic terms, such as “a syntax opulent with tomorrows”, and makes use of an analogy-“you don’t dispose of the cow just because it has produced a magnificent calf, do you?”-in order to communicate his message to Yolland. Hugh is an educated man, who uses many literary features in his everyday speech, and is one of the few characters who realises Ireland’s inevitable future. This shows Friel’s desire to emphasise the importance of education for the new, modern world.  

Another theme in the play is one of cultural identity. The town of Baile Beag, according to Hugh, makes up for the lack of wealth with “a rich language”. The Irish language gives them an identity separate from the English, one that may seem “hermetic” to some, including Yolland, but which allows them to be unique and uphold tradition through their place names. Perhaps it is also for tradition that Friel has used the conventional three Act structure as a literary framework for the play.

Within the extract, some political issues are encountered. It is clear that Hugh has Nationalist views-the English language is referred to as “plebeian”. This opinion is shared by Manus, Hugh’s son, who purposely speaks Irish in front of Yolland, and rudely responds to Yolland’s translation from Irish to English with “So.” Though both Hugh and Manus are Nationalists and oppose anglicizing Irish place names, Friel does not directly state this in the two characters’ speech. The approach is subtler, as shown in the quotes above, yet their views are clearly visible to the audience.

 In the play there is much conflict between the Irish and the British. It is almost as if Manus represents Ireland and Yolland represents Britain, a parallel to the situation in 1833 (the setting of the play). Owen, on the other hand, has an ambiguous role which is questioned by Manus. Manus suggests that he is a traitor indirectly, within the subtext-“But there are always the Rolands, aren’t there?”

At the time of the setting of the play English was the language of power, commerce and social acceptance. Highlighting this is Friel’s decision for Yolland to speak in Standard English at all times. In comparison, Doalty uses colloquial terms such as “Cripes”, and his regional dialect-“I don’t know a word you’re saying”, creating a more friendly feel to the text. These strong accents show the difference in status of a young English soldier and an Irishman such as Doalty. A dialect and colloquialism could be said to be characteristic of working class people in 1833, expressing Friel’s political view regarding social class explicitly.

Hugh, perhaps the most articulate character, brings up the final point. He understands that change is necessary to every country in order for them to progress. Hugh realises that words are not “immortal”, and uses the metaphor “a civilisation can be imprisoned in a linguistic contour which no longer matches the landscape of fact” to address this. When it is considered in the context of the time in which the play was written (1981), when America was the dominant country and Ireland’s identity was fading, Hugh’s idea that change is necessary seems very wise. It should also be noted that not only is the play written in English for what Friel himself called a ‘dramatic conceit’, but also because Gaelic had become so rarely used that a large majority of the audience would only understand the play if it was written in English, including, ironically, an Irish audience.