The significance of language in any dramatic production, or indeed any piece of performance art, be it song, poetry or whatever, is undoubtedly of great importance, as it is not only the medium through which ideas, thoughts, emotions etc. are communi...

The significance of language in any dramatic production, or indeed any piece of performance art, be it song, poetry or whatever, is undoubtedly of great importance, as it is not only the medium through which ideas, thoughts, emotions etc. are communicated, but also sets the scene in regards to style, feeling, mood and tone, an understanding of which ought to lead to greater appreciation of the work in question. In his Poetics, Aristotle prescribed that the action of a play be “made pleasurable” “in language”, (Aristotle: p10). He also states that “The most important quality in diction is clarity, provided there is no loss of dignity”, (Aristotle: p36). These instructions however, may apply quite reasonably to almost any other kind of drama, (at least up until its emergence), but can easily be argued to have lost all authority over the kind of dramatisation that falls under the heading of the Theatre of the Absurd, where pleasance, clarity and dignity frequently fall by the wayside.

In an arena where the traditional theatrical objectives of representing reality through long-established stage conventions regarding plot, character development, use and structure of language etc. have been all but abandoned, the role of language has been not so much redefined, but rather has been stripped of any clear, distinct, exclusive working definition or suggested structure, so that it becomes less of an explanatory accompaniment to the action portrayed, and more of a secondary aspect, to be scrutinized and considered in its own right. The term “Absurd”, when used to describe such works as Waiting for Godot, refers to the originally musical term, ‘discordant’, or ‘out of harmony’. The turning on its head of language, not only of its function and usefulness, but also of its very structure and composition, to a point where it no longer serves to communicate clearly and unambiguously the thoughts of the writer, (or even the action on stage, as these may or may not be the same), to the audience, or even confuses, through outright, even deliberate contradiction, the action taking place, points to this discordance and lack of harmony, and is one of the features that determines the work of not only Samuel Beckett, but of other dramatists among his contemporaries, as belonging to that category which is known as Theatre of the Absurd.

The apparent ‘discordance’ of what is said, and what actually happens can be seen throughout Waiting for Godot, most notably at the end of each act where our two main protagonists decide to leave, only to stay where they are, as at the end of act I,

This is a preview of the whole essay

“Estragon : Well, shall we go? Vladimir : Yes, let’s go.” (Beckett, p52), and then again, though the lines are reversed, at the end of act II. Many times in the dialogue something is referred to but which either never exists, (or we do not see that it does), or which never happens. As Martin Esslin, in The Theatre of the Absurd notes, “what happens on the stage transcends, and often contradicts, the words spoken”, (Esslin, p26). On page 35 Estragon directs Vladimir down the “End of the corridor, on the left”, though there is of course no corridor. To which Vladimir replies “Keep my seat”, though of course there are no seats, (Beckett, p35). So it would seem that the language employed fails to succeed in describing accurately the situation on stage, either in terms of action, (i.e. Estragon’s proclamation “I’m going” (Beckett, p35) which fails to be followed by movement) or of definition, as it tells us nothing or very little of the seemingly fundamental questions of who these characters are, where they are, what they are doing there, etc. All we know is that they are waiting for Godot, and by the end of the play we know that Godot shall never come. We know not why they wait, what would happen should Godot arrive, or any other explanatory information.

It may be argued that this failure to extract any further understanding of the plot, such as it is, from the language utilized in the play, is symbolic of the difficulty in transferring the original intentions of the writer, his thoughts, feelings etc, to his audience. The language which fails to express, also fails to inform. And yet, with regards to Waiting for Godot, it might also be argued that the language, in this case, does indeed bridge the gap between the desire of the writer and that which is grasped by the audience, in that although the language and the way in which it is used give us little to get our teeth into, neither does the supposed plot, or course of events supply us with any real action. The language does not tell us much because nothing much happens. In fact, what does happen, is that people wait. Estragon and Vladimir, are waiting for Godot, and until he comes, they must simply pass the time. We are even told on more than one occasion that this is what they’re doing, “It’ll pass the time”, Vladimir states, in defence of his wishing to recount the story of the two thieves, (Beckett, p14).

So the role of the language used, rather than assisting us with such mysteries as character, plot, location within space and time, instead leads us to further reflect on the significance of what we are seeing, the coherence with that which we are hearing, and the possible implications that we are prompted to conclude. In a sense, this forced questioning of the sights and sounds which are presented to us, this necessary deliberation, on what it all might actually mean, may imply that the alternative use of language in such works succeeds where more traditional approaches fail. Even if we still do not reach such a level of enlightenment, the struggle that has enveloped us may, as regards Godot, signify the absurdity inherent in human existence.

The search for meaning, the isolation of the individual, may be represented even by the viewer / readers own confusion, frustration and, (perhaps) realisation, even if this process never extends beyond the context of grappling with the language of an ‘absurd’ play.

This refusal to adhere to the traditional conventions of plot and language, the continual use of silences, of repetition, of contradictions, of rambling monologues such as Lucky’s spewing forth of words when commanded by Pozzo to “think”, (Beckett, p41), and nonsensical dialogues of the type in which Estragon and Vladimir engage throughout the play, indicate what Esslin refers to as “the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought”, (Esslin, p24). This is how absurd dramatists choose to express the “senselessness of the human condition”, (Esslin, p24). The senselessness of the words spoken, the way in which they are strung together, the action that does or does not accompany them, signifies the urge to express something that cannot or should not be expressed using traditional dramatic conventions. Esslin describes the Theatre of the Absurd as a reflection of “what seems to be the attitude most genuinely representative of our own time”, (Esslin, p22). This attitude is generally agreed to be one of despair or at least frustration, of struggling to grasp the meaning or purpose of human existence, of making sense of that which Ionesco describes as “senseless, absurd, useless”, (Esslin, p23). Man being, as Ionesco claims, “cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots”, (Esslin, p23), it seems reasonable that dramatic tradition and the realism that it represents, are rejected by the absurd, in every possible aspect, language included.

This is necessary not only in order to reinforce the rejection, but also in the name of “integration between the subject-matter and the form in which it is expressed”, (Esslin, p25). Arguably similar and roughly contemporary movements also seek to express something relevant to its age, through its use of dramatic and literary devices. The ‘poetic avant-garde’ for example, described as a “parallel trend in contemporary French theatre”, does so using “consciously ‘poetic’ speech”, (Esslin, p25). The Theatre of the Absurd however, can be distinguished from such likenesses by taking things a step further to the “radical devaluation of language”, (Esslin, p26).

The use of language in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, its contradictory and often nonsensical nature, which leads to its diminished status, reversed role and obscuration of meaning, places the work firmly within the realms of the Theatre of the Absurd. The rejection of realism, and the shift of emphasis and purpose symbolised tangibly by the alternative use of and meaning given to language, point to a need shared by absurd dramatists to convey something other than the traditional theatrical notions usually expressed by realist drama. These notions, the writer’s innermost thoughts and affectations, can only find suitable expression, if the form is true to the content. Thus we find ourselves grappling with Lucky’s inane monologue, Estragon and Vladimir’s farcical dialogue, and other bizarre abuses of language, in order to try to understand that of which Beckett was thinking when he wrote Waiting for Godot.

Bibliography

Beckett, Samuel Waiting for Godot, The Complete Dramatic Works

London: Faber & Faber 1986

Esslin, Martin The Theatre of the Absurd, London: Methuen 2001

Aristotle Poetics London: Penguin 1996

Lane, Robert D. Beckett’s Godot: A bundle of broken mirrors” in “Of Modern Poetry” by Wallace Stevens, <>