LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES IN PERSONAL AND SOCIAL

COMMUNICATION CONTEXTS IN

DRAMATIC LITERATURE

NANCY JUNE JOI^JES, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

SPEECH COMMUNICATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial 'Fulfillment of • the Requirements for

the Degree of

MA.STER OF ARTS

Approved

Accepted

August, 1977

/kz. PiBvl'1733

f9fr

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Dr. William J. Jordan for

his direction of this thesis and to the other members

of my committee, Drs. Vera L. Simpson and T. Richard

Cheatham, for their helpful criticism.

11

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of Purpose 1

Review of Literature 2

Hypothesis 7

Overview of the Study 7

Notes 9

II. PROCEDURES 11

Selection of Materials 11

Validation of Materials 15

Independent Variables l8

Data Analysis 19

Summary 20

Notes

III. REPORT OF RESULTS 23

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 28

Introduction 28

General Discussion 29

Discussion of the Variables 30

Observations and Implications 3^

Discussion of the Plays and Playwrights 37

iii

L i t e r a t u r e and Space P e r c e p t i o n 39

Summary ^0

Notes ^2

LIST OF REFERENCES ^'3

APPENDIX 14-5

A. BOOKLET A: DISTANCE TEST FOR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS ^6

B. BOOKLET B: DISTANCE TEST FOR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS 59

i v

LIST OF TABLES

1. Mean Scores of Distance Estimates in

Personal and Social Contexts 17

2. Summary Table of Regression Analysis 25

3. Mean Scores for all Variables 26

V

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpose

Nineteenth and early twentieth century writings

regarding language usage concern propriety with little

attention given to communication situations. Tradi­

tionally, language scholars have categorized language as

being formal or literary, informal or colloquial, and

vulgar or illiterate. These classifications were dic­

tated by social class and level of education, and they

were inflexible in regard to situation or personality

of the communicator. The purpose of this study is to

locate specific linguistic cues which occur within cer­

tain communication situations or contexts.

There appears at this time no fully developed theory

concerning the "whys" explaining the changes in linguis­

tic cues in varying situations. A review of literature,

which is to follow, summarizes the research related to

communicative behavior as it has been situationally ob­

served. Because there appears to be no established con­

struct in regard to language usage as it is adapted to

situations, the purpose of this study is to observe and

describe the ways in which a set of variables operate

in given communication contexts.

1

There is no theory to be tested, but, rather, ob­

servations, descriptions, and interpretations to be made.

Hawes summarizes the problem involved in testing undevel­

oped theory in the following way:

Communication has never gone through the phase of systematically observing, describing, and inter­preting all manner of human communicative activity.^

He further states that the search for the answers to "why"

questions should follow sufficient descriptive and inter­

pretive work,^

Review of Literature

The work of Kenyon in 19^7 recognizes standard and

substandard as cultural levels of language and familiar­

ity and formality as communicative functions of language.

Kenyon's major concern is with pronunciation as it changes

in formal and informal settings. The work of Joos is an

early attempt at developing a system for categorizing the

ways in which speakers adjust their language to various

contexts.-^ Joos' study primarily concerns the relation­

ship between language and specific social environments.

The result of this study was the establishment of five

language style categories, as follows:

1. Intimate style avoids giving the listener in­formation from outside the speaker's skin. The two principle features of intimate style are extraction and jargon, codes known only to the parties involved. i.e. "Cold", replaces "The coffee is cold". "mmmm". replaces "That feels good".

3 2. Casual style is used for friends, acquaintances,

and insiders. This style omits weak words assum­ing that the listener has background for under­standing. It also employs slang.

3. Consultative style is most reflective of stan­dard American speech. The speaker supplies background material and the listener partici­pates continuously.

4. Formal style is designed to inform through a planned message and is delivered in a precise manner. Listener participation is not essential.

5. Frozen style is the style used for print. It is for people who are to remain social strangers,

. but it has the advantage of being reread for further understanding.^

According to Joos, the consultative category is the style

with which Americans are most at home. If an interaction

or relationship is maintained, it usually merges into the

casual style.^ Also, communicators often shift from one

style to a neighboring style within single transactions,

or even within the same sentence.

Hall made use of the Joos linguistic categories in

explaining how man uses space and distance in his com­

munication interactions. Hall states that the specific

distance used is dependent upon the transaction, that

is, the relationship of the interacting persons, how o

they feel, and what they are doing. In expanding upon

this premise. Hall says that each personality has a

number of "situational" personalities, and that these per­

sonalities respond differently depending upon the given 9 situation. His four categories, v/hich evolve from those

of Joos, are: intimate, personal, social, and public.

Each of these categories has a close and a far phase.

The following descriptions include both phases.

1. Intimate distance ranges from contact to eight­een inches. It is the distance of love-making, comforting, and protecting. The voice level is very low, often a whisper,

2. Personal distance ranges from eighteen inches to four feet. It is the distance at which communicators discuss subjects of personal interest and a moderate voice level is used.

3. Social distance has a range of four feet to twelve feet. It is the distance at which im­personal business is discussed and a normal voice level is used. The close phase (four to seven feet) is a common distance for people attending social gatherings.

^', Public distance ranges from twelve to twenty-five feet or more. The voice is loud. This is the distance of public speaking and style of language becomes more formal with precise enunc iat io n.^

These distance zones are the result of Hall's observa­

tions of man's territoriality behavior. The specific

distance chosen depends upon the nature of the trans­

action and the parties involved.- "

Leginski and Izzett use Hall's categories as the

basis for a study of linguistic style. Subjects in this

study listened to tape recordings which recreated situa­

tions based upon the Hall categories. Each tape was

rated, by the subjects, on a twelve point continuous

scale. Results of the study show that subjects could

determine distance between speakers by listening to the

1 2 linguistic styles of those speakers.-^^ In other words,

5

linguistic cues appear to be indicative of specific

communication contexts. However, Leginski and Izzett

tested for distances using clusters of dialogue and were

not concerned with the specific linguistic cues. The

style of delivery was the actual determiner of the dis­

tance selected by the subjects.

Phillips and Metzger conclude that interpersonal

discourse is highly motivated and goal-oriented.-'-- They

state that the goal-seeking behavior can be described

and criticized, just as public discourse is described

and criticized. However, the research of Phillips

and Metzger is concerned with human behavior in a var­

iety of interpersonal situations and within certain

roles, and they are not concerned with the structure of

the language used in these situations.

Osgood, on the other hand, is concerned with spec­

ific linguistic usages and theorizes that a person's

motivational state is characterized by specific features

of encoded language.- - From an examination of the en­

coding behaviors found in suicide notes, Osgood theorizes

that increased motivation leads to greater stereotopical

use of language. In order to test the theory, he em­

ploys the following variables:

1. Average number of syllables per word.

2. Type/token ratio.

3. Repetition of phrases.

^'. Noun-verb/adjective-adverb ratio.

5. "Allness" terms.^^

The comparison of suicide notes with ordinary letters

supports the theory of increased stereotopy in highly

motivated conditions. There is less diversity in the

vocabulary, more redundancy, less discrimination (noun-

verb/adjective-adverb ratio), and greater use of polar­

ized assertions. '

Jordan and Powers employ stereotopy measures in an

attempt to distinguish between high and low stress in

communication situations. While four of the five var­

iables (cited above) discriminate between contexts,

they do not do so in stereotopic ways. Essentially,

they distinguish in terms of a formality/informality

dimension.-^ Since the experimental conditions in the

Jordan and Powers study separated subjects by social

and personal physical distances, it appears that the

formality/informality dimension of language may best

distinguish between communication settings.

Nicholas employs the Osgood model in order to dis­

tinguish between activist and non-activist discourse.

Although Osgood's model does not make significant dis­

tinctions in the case of the particular subject examined,

there is sufficient support to warrant similar study

of other subjects.

7

Hypothesis

A major theoretical assumption may be made from

the foregoing review of the literature. If language

behavior is a function of the communication context in

which it occurs, then specific cues should distinguish

one context from another. Such a distinction would pro­

vide knowledge concerning how communicators use language

to adapt to differing communication contexts. For pur­

poses of this study, two communication contexts will be

studied. Personal and social contexts will be examined

with regard to the specific language cues which may dis­

tinguish them. It is the intent of this research not

only to locate the linguistic cues which distinguish

the personal communication context from the social com­

munication context, but also, to arrange these indicators

in their order of importance. Therefore, the following

hypothesis will be tested:

H: The independent variables, syllables per word, type/token ratio, phrase repetition, noun-verb/ adjective-adverb ratio, allness terms, segment length, segment number, and number of personal pronouns will fit into a linear equation which will account for significant variations between the personal and social communication contexts.

Overview of the Study

The procediires to be used in the selection of material

to be tested and some of the problems involved in making

those selections will be discussed in Chapter 2. The

8

data will then be subjected to quantitative analysis

and the results of that analysis reported in Chapter

3. The final chapter will be devoted to a discussion

and interpretation of the results and to the conclusions

and implications which may be made from those results.

NOTES

Martin Joos, The Five Clocks (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., 1967). p. viii.

^Leonard C. Hawes, "Alternative Theoretical Bases: Toward A Presuppositional Critique," Communication Quart­erly. 25 (Winter 1977), 61^.

3lbid., 68.

^John Samuel Kenyon, American Pronunciation (Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr Publishing Co., 1951), pp. 15-16.

- Joos, p. vii.

^Ibid., pp. 19-^9.

' Ibid., pp. 19-23. o °Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York:

Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969), p. 128.

^Ibid., p. 115.

l°Ibid., pp. 116-125.

^^Ibid., p. 128.

^ -'- Walter Leginski and Richard R. Izzett, "Linguis­tic Styles As Indices For Interpersonal Distance," Journal of Social Psychology, 91 (December 1973), 291-30^.

- Gerald M. Phillips and Nancy J. Metzger, Intimate Communication (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976) , PP. 6-10.

^^Ibid., p. 6.

l ^ C h a r l e s E. Osgood, "Some E f f e c t s of M o t i v a t i o r on S t y l e of E n c o d i n g , " Lanig:ua^e and S t y l e , ed . by Thomar. A. Sebeok (Cambr idge , M a s s . : The M.I .T ' . P r e s s , I 9 6 0 ) , p p . 2 9 3 - 3 0 6 .

l ^ I b i d . , p . 2 9 8 .

10

I '^Ibid . , p . 303.

-^"William J . Jordan and William G. Powers, "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Apprehension and S i t u a t i o n a l S t r e s s , " Unpublished Paper, ' 1977, p . 9.

19 Johnette Darlyne Nicholas, "A Quant i t a t ive Analysis of Gloria Steinem's Persuasive Discourse ," M.A. Thesis , Texas Tech Univers i ty , 1975, p . 60.

CHAPTER II

PROCEDURES

Selection of Materials

One difficulty in dealing with the interpersonal

communication in personal relationships is the private

nature of the situation in which it takes place. It is

difficult to capture pieces of dialogue to examine and

the researcher must rely on secondhand reports of the

contents of private communication exchanges. Where,

then, does the researcher go to find the material, or

source, for personal conversation? The presence of an

observer in a personal conversation immediately takes

the conversation out of the realm of intimacy.

Hall, in his studies of man's use of distance,

states that writers, as well as painters, are concerned

with the use of space. A writer's success in commun­

icating perception depends upon his ability to use lan­

guage to convey different degrees of closeness to the

reader. Hall theorizes that the language of literary

texts may be used to produce data on space perception.

Literatur'e may be studied not only for enjoyment and

plot content, but also, to identify how the writer pro­

duces messages which enable the reader to build his own

sensations of space. Hall cites the works of Shakespeare,

11

12

Thoreau, Mark Twain, and Kafka to make his point that

literature has written into it the elements of space,- ^

Joos also considers literature a reliable source

from which man may learn about himself. He defines good

writing as being, "not the perfectly tailored garment

of a Personage, perfectly pressed since last he wore

it; it is the rumpled suit of a living person". If we

can accept Hamlet's notion, "the purpose of playing is

to hold a mirror up to nature",-^ then drama may be con­

sidered a logical source for the material needed for

studying language.

For the purposes of this study, it seems desirable

to utilize drama as best mirroring the world in which

we live. This mirroring of the world should be found

most nearly in realistic drama. Theater scholars devote

portions of their texts to defining "realism" as the

term applies to the theater. Brockett, in his overview

of theater from the ancient to the modern, summarizes

the precepts of the school of Realism in the following

way:

The playwright should strive for a truthful depic­tion of the real world. Since he may know the real world only through direct observation, he should restrict himself to writing about the society around him. Furthermore, he should strive to be as objec­tive as possible in his work and avoid distorting the truth.°

Tennessee Williams simplifies this definition by saying

that realistic drama uses a "genuine fri^idaire and

13

authentic ice-cubes" and its characters "speak exactly

as its audience speaks",' Bowman and Ball have a def­

inition which captures the essence of realistic drama:

In composition and production, an aesthetic attempt to make a dramatic piece reproduce real life. Hence realistic.°

In the late nineteenth century, a set of criteria

formally came into being and was adopted by the realis­

tic school of writers. These criteria are as follows:

1, Accuracy in the details of costuming and scen­ery.

2, Clear exposition of situation and characters.

3, Truthful depiction of subject matter and lan­guage.

^'. Careful preparation for future events.

5. Unexpected but logical reversals.

6. Continuous and mounting suspense.

7. An obligatory scene. Q

8. A logical and believable resolution.^

Plays evolving from these criteria are labeled "well

made" plays.-^^ These qualifications, although adapt­

able to all types of plays, fit especially well the needs

of realism because of their dependence upon clear cause

to cause relationship and the logical progression of 4- 11 events.

The d e f i n i t i o n developed by Bowman and Ball and

the foregoing c r i t e r i a of r e a l i s t i c drama were used in

the s e l e c t i n g of the following plays anc3 playwrights

14

as representative of realistic drama:

1. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - Tennessee Williams

2. Anna Christie - Eugene O'Neill

3. All My Sons - Arthur Miller

4. Natural Affection - William Inge

5. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - Edward Albee

6. The Autumn Garden - Lillian Hellman

7. The Country Girl - Clifford Odets

8. The Subject Was Roses - Frank D. Gilroy

9. The Rope Dancers - Morton Wishengrad

10. The Grass Harp - Truman Capote

Brockett names Williams, Odets, Miller, Inge, O'Neill,

and Albee as being among the finest of the realistic

playwrights of the pre- and post-World War II era.- ^

Wishengrad, Hellman, and Capote have also been described

as being adept at dramatically reporting about the so­

ciety around them.-'-3

After these plays had been selected and found to

fulfill the requirements of realistic drama, one char­

acter from each play was selected for study. These char­

acters are central figures around whom the drama revolves.

Selection of scenes was based upon the criteria set dovm

by Hall in distinguishing between communication contexts.

Hall uses the following criteria for identifying per­

sonal and social contexts:

15

Personal

1. Dis tance of e igh teen inches to four f e e t .

2. Involves two people .

3 . Discuss ion of personal i n t e r e s t and involvment,

4. Modera-fce voice l e v e l . (Deviations from moder­a t e voice l e v e l would be indica ted in the s tage d i r e c t i o n s . )

Social

1. Distance of four feet to twelve feet.

2. Involves three or more people.

3. Casual social gathering or impersonal business.

k. Normal voice level. (Deviations from normal voice level would be indicated in the stage directions.)l4

Validation of Materials

In order to validate the contexts of the selections

made by the researcher, test booklets containing scenes

in which each character spoke in a two people context

and in a three or more people context were developed.

Each of these twenty scenes contained one hundred words.

Each booklet contained ten scenes, five personal and five

social contexts. Nineteen subjects were given Booklet

A which contained ten scenes of dialogue. Twenty-two

subjects were given Booklet B which contained ten differ­

ent scenes involving the same characters. The scenes

were varied so that the subjects did not have the same

character in two different contexts. Names of plays

16

and p laywrights were de le ted from the booklets so as

not to p re jud ice the sub j ec t s . Samples of these book­

l e t s may be seen i n Appendixes A. and B.

These bookle ts were d i s t r i b u t e d to s tudents enrol led

i n undergraduate speech communication c l a s se s a t Texas

Tech Univers i ty . The subjec ts were in s t ruc t ed by the

r e sea rche r to read each scene and answer the ques t ion

a t the end of the scene. The subjec ts were asked to

i n d i c a t e on a sca le of zero to t en fee t how far they f e l t

the charac te r named was from h i s l i s t e n e r or l i s t e n e r s .

Each of the for ty-one booklets were scored and the

responses on the d i s t ance sca les recorded for each

charac te r i n the two con tex t s . Mean scores were obtained

from the responses and a t t e s t was run to determine

whether or not the re was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ference be­

tween the two s e t s of scores . Table 1 i nd i ca t e s the

mean scores obtained from the responses in each context .

A. mean of 31.97 inches was found in the personal context

and a mean of 58,21 inches was found i n the soc ia l con­

t e x t . The t t e s t y ie lded a value of 5.^5. With l6

degrees of freedom, t h i s score i s s i g n i f i c a n t (p< .0 l ) .

These r e s u l t s confirmed t h a t e ighteen of the tv/enty se­

l e c t i o n s f i t into e i t he r the personal or the soc ia l com­

munication context as per H a l l ' s c a t e g o r i e s . The scenes

from the play by Truman Capote did not f a l l within the

range of d i s t ances suggested by Hall and were dropped

TABLE 1

MEAN SCORES OF DISTANCE ESTIMATES IN

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS

17

PERSONAL CONTEXT

( r ange= l8" to 4 ' , H a l l )

SOCIAL CONTEXT

( range=4 ' to 1 2 ' , Ha l l )

36.316

44.450

30.800

41.680

34.900

36.272

14.526

33.789

15.000

50.180*

54.

50 .

6 0 .

,272

,210

,810

55.(^^^

58.

78.

48,

52,

66,

55.

,100

,000

,000

.900

.000

.263*

^Eliminated from study due to deviant scores

18

from the study.

The next step in analysis of the scenes was to

isolate and record the independent variables.

Independent Variables

The independent variables were counted and recorded

according to the following procedure:

1. Count of average number of syllables per word.

Method: Total number of syllables divided by the total number of words

2. Phrase repetition

Method; Exact phrases of two or more words counted minus the original use of the phrase.

3. Noun-verb/adjective-adverb r a t i o

Method: Total number of nouns and verbs di­vided by the total numbe'c of adjectives and adverbs

4. Type/token ratio

Method: Total number of different words di­vided by the total number of words

5. Allness terms

Method: Total number of allness words

Definition: Terms that permit no exception, i.e., always, never, forever, every­body

6. Average length of segment

Method: Total number of syllables divided by the number of segments

7. Personal pronouns

Method: Total number of personal pronouns

19

8. Number of segments

Method: Total number of segments, or times which the character communicated

The personal context scene from the play by Odets

was selected by the researcher for a check of reliability.

The scores obtained, using the above procedures, were

recorded. The same scene was scored by the thesis di­

rector, and the raters' scores were analyzed using a

Pearson r. The inter-rater agreement was established to

le .998, indicative of high reliability.

Data Analysis

The raw scores obtained from these procedures were

input to a Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis accord­

ing to the program recommended in the SPSS. - This

analysis was used to determine if there is, indeed,

significant linguistic differences between communica­

tion contexts and, if so, how significant each of the

independent variables was in determining those differ­

ences. Multiple Regression Analysis is useful in iso­

lating the contributions of two or more independent

variables upon one dependent variable. The use of

this type of analysis will establish not only the per­

centage of the variance between personal and social

communication contexts, but also, the relative impor­

tance of each variable in the establishment of that

variance.

20

Summary

This chapter dea l s with the s e l e c t i o n of ma te r i a l s

for study and the c r i t e r i a used for the establishment

of the persona l and soc ia l communication con tex t s . The

independent v a r i a b l e s are named and defined, and the r e ­

l i a b i l i t y of the r e sea rche r e s t ab l i shed . Chapter 3 pro­

ceeds by r e p o r t i n g the r e s u l t s of the Stepwise Mult iple

Regress ion Analys i s .

NOTES

G e r a l d M. P h i l l i p s and Nancy J . Me tzge r , I n t i m a t e Communica t ion ( B o s t o n : A l l y n and Bacon, I n c . , 1976) , P . 1 0 .

^Edward T. H a l l , The Hidclen Dimens ion (New York: Doub leday & Company, I n c . , 1 9 6 9 ) , p . 2 4 .

^ I b i d . , p p . 9 5 - 9 7 .

Martin Joos, The Five Clocks ( New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., 1967), p. 49.

- Hardin Craig, ed. , The Complete Works of Shakes­peare, "Hamlet", Act III: Sc. II. (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1961), p. 922.

Oscar G. Brockett, The Theatre: An Introcluction (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964), P. 262.

7 ^R.F. Dietrich, William,E. Carpenter, and Kevin

Kerrane, The Art of Modern Drama (New York: Holt, Rine­hart, and Winston, Inc., 1969), p. 429.

Q

Walter Parker Bowman and Robert Hamilton Ba l l , Thea t r e Language (New York: Thea t re A r t s Books, I 9 6 1 ) , P. 291 .

^Brocke t t , pp . 262-263.

^ ^ I b i d . , p . 262.

^ ^ I b i d . , p . 263.

^ ^ I b i d . , pp . 285-286,323-324,350.

13 •^John Gassner , Thea t r e a t t h e Cross roads ; P lays and P l a y w r i g h t s of t h e Mid-Century American Stage (New York: Hol t , R i n e h a r t , and Winston, i 9 6 0 ) , pp. 132-139, l 6 l - l 6 4 ; George J e a n Nathan, The Thea t r e i n t h e F i f t i e s (New York: Alf red A. Knopf, 1953) . PP. 84-88 .

l ^ a l l , pp . 119-123 .

21

22

-'-^Norman H. Nie, C. Hadla i H u l l , J e a n G. J e n k i n s , K a r i n S t e i n b r e n n e r , and Dale H. Bent, SPSS, 2nd Ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1 9 7 5 7 T ^ p . 320-367.

l ^Fred N. K e r l i n g e r . Foundat ions of Behaviora l Resea rch , 2nd Ed. (New York: Hol t , R i n e h a r t , and Win­s t o n , I n c . , 1973) , p p . 460-464.

CHAPTER III

REPORT OF RESULTS

In beginning this portion of the study, which will

be a report of the results of the analysis, it is nec­

essary to restate the hypothesis and relate these results

directly to that hypothesis,

H: The independent variables, syllables per word, "type/token ratio, phrase repetition, noun-verb/ adjective-adverb ratio, allness terms, segment length, segment number, and number of personal pronouns will fit into a linear equation which will account for significant variations between the personal and social communication contexts.

The general equation for Multiple Regression Analysis

is as follows:

Y = A + B-X-L + B2X2 + B3X3 + B/ X 4- B^X^ + B5X5 +

^7^7 ^ ^n^n

The components of this equation may be broken down in

this way;

Y = Communication Context (Social vs. Personal)

A = constant (Y intercept)

B = regression coefficients for each variable

(B stands for the expected change in Y with

a change of one unit in X when other X's are

held constant or controlled)

The regression analysis yielded the following regression

equation from the data in this study:

23

24

Communication Context = 2.405 + .05 (TTR) + .039

(Segment Length) + .072 (NVAAR) + 1.10 (Syllable

Number) + .025 (Segment Number) + .013 (Phrase

Repetition) + .005 (Personal Pronoun)

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis, when applied

to the independent variables (ttr, segment length, nvaar,

syllable, phrase repetition, personal pronouns, segment

number, and allness terms), accounted for variance

arising from differences between personal and social

communication contexts. (See Table 2) The analysis in­

dicated a linear solution which accounted for 59f° of the

variance between the groups. Of this 59^, the ttr yielded

the highest percentage of the total, that being 39%. Seg­

ment length was the second largest contributor, account­

ing for 17^. NVAAR, syllable number, segment number,

phrase repetition, and personal pronoun number made up

the remaining 3fo of the solution. The limited number

of allness terms found in the data caused that variable

to be dropped from the equation.

The results support the hypothesis that the inde­

pendent variables ttr, segment length, nvaar, syllable

number, segment number, phrase repetition, and personal

pronoun number will fit into a linear equation which

accounts for significant variations between personal

and social communication contexts. The dominance of the

ttr and segment length variables over the remaining

25

(M

< &4

pq

Hi

H C/3

c^

O

< :

m p^

0^

H

H

Vf^

o ! > -£>-

NO

O

O

o\ CV2 ^ >A

O

H NO CNJ O (M

O 1

H NO Cv] O CNJ

O 1

O cn C ^

NO H

O

O 0 0 H V A O

O

NO ^ 0 0 ^

o o

1

00 V>i

v>» <?0

NO

NO ON NO [N-^

V>»

r^ H ON CA

o { > -

o £>-H

o

^ J ^ CA H ON CA

^ A O C\2

NO u>

o

0 0 VOk V A CNl

NO

o ! N -ON ^ £N-

O

o

>iCd B U

x:

-P

0) - P

CD

CD

-c^ V A NO V A CNl

O 1

CA

o VO NO CN]

O

0 ^ O VP\ CA ^

o 1

IN-^ r-",

> A ^

o 1

J>-r H 0 0

o CA

o 1

CN] CNl CK O O

O

ON H vn\ r-\

o o

o J>-H O O

O

V A NO H O O

o

u> NO

o o o o

£>-CM r-\ { > -^ A

NO -:t NO 0 0 V>i

NO H 0 0 0 0 ^

H 0 0 CJN 0 0 ^ A

NO

-:± O ON V A

U Q) > cd I

X ! ' CD U > 0) 'H > -P I O

^ CD

O n^ d S cd ^

O H

O CD

CD Cti

O W -P

0 (D

o •H • P • H -P 0

CH CU OP:^

U ^ CD W

rQ C e ?

o

CA 0 0 v->> ^ A JN-

H 0 0 ^ A NO ! > -

i H C ^

NO NO ! > -

C3N 0 £N-NO {> -

C\2 ^ 0 0 NO JN-

C 0

m U Q)

PM

<HH 0

U CD

r Q

S ^

CO !:: ;5 Q c 0 ?-l

S fL,

26

v a r i a b l e s may be a c c o u n t e d f o r p a r t i a l l y by o v e r l a p p i n g

and a l s o , by t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l s i z e of t h e s a m p l e .

The o v e r l a p p i n g o c c u r s , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e p h r a s e

r e p e t i t i o n v a r i a b l e b e i n g a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e t t r .

As t h e y a r e b o t h i n d i c a t i v e of t h e l a n g u a g e d i v e r s i f i c a ­

t i o n o f t h e communica to r , t h e y t e s t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same

t h i n g s .

T a b l e 3 shows mean s c o r e s f o r a l l e i g h t of t h e v a r ­

i a b l e s u s e d .

TABLE 3

MEAN SCORES FOR ALL VARIABLES

VARIABLE PERSONAL CONTEXT SOCIAL CONTEXT

T y p e / t o k e n r a t i o 6 6 . 0 0 75 .00

Ave rage L e n g t h p e r Segment 1 3 . 3 6 20 .12

N o u n - v e r b / a d j e c t i v e -a d v e r b r a t i o 3 . 2 5 2 . 7 5

Ave rage Number of Segments 1 0 . 0 0 7 . 1 1

Number of P h r a s e R e p e t i t i o n s 3 . 0 0 1.22

Ave rage Number of P e r s o n a l P r o n o u n s 2 1 . 1 1 1 8 . 3 3

Ave rage Number of A l l n e s s Terms 0 . 7 8 1 .44

Average Number o f S y l l a b l e s 1 .20 1.25

27

As the table indicates, the social communication con­

text has a higher ttr, segment length number, and

syllable number than the personal communication con­

text. In other words, the characters used greater

language diversification, communicated for longer per­

iods of time and used more multi-syllabic words while

in a social situation. The social co'ntext has a lower

number of segments, less personal pronouns, less phrase

repetition, and a lower noun-verb/adjective-adverb

ratio than the personal context. Communicators in

social situations speak less frequently, use fewer per­

sonal pronouns, repeat less often, and use more adjec­

tives and adverbs. These results seem to indicate a

somewhat more formal use of language in social com­

munication contexts, while personal situations seem

more informal.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

I n t r o d u c t i o n

T h i s s t u d y b e g a n , b e f o r e a n y t h i n g was w r i t t e n on

p a p e r o r f o r m a l i z e d , w i t h a t h o u g h t . The t h o u g h t b e ­

came a q u e s t i o n and t h a t q u e s t i o n was "Do p e o p l e t a l k

d i f f e r e n t l y , u s e d i f f e r e n t words , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e

s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e y f i n d t h e m s e l v e s " ? The o b v i o u s

answer seemed t o be "Yes" , I t a l m o s t goes w i t h o u t s a y ­

i n g t h a t communica to r s a l t e r t h e i r speech i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s t h e y a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n

each i n d i v i d u a l s i t u a t i o n . O n e ' s s p e a k i n g h a b i t s seem

t o be d i r e c t e d by t h e many r o l e s he p l a y s , t h e many

d i m e n s i o n s of h i s p e r s o n a l i t y . Thus , t h e answer seemed

a n e a s y and o b v i o u s "Yes" . Then a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n a r o s e ,

" I f one d o e s a l t e r o n e ' s s p e e c h , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e

s i t u a t i o n i n which he i s found , t h e n i n what ways does

he speak d i f f e r e n t l y " ? T r y i n g to l i s t s p e c i f i c d i f ­

f e r e n c e s i n t h e way communica to r s speak from one con ­

t e x t t o t h e n e x t p r o v e d to be d i f f i c u l t . Most comm­

u n i c a t o r s would admi t t h a t t h e y do a l t e r s p e a k i n g h a b i t s

i n s t i n c t i v e l y w i t h o u t b e i n g c o n s c i o u s of t h e s p e c i f i c

"hows" . I f one o b s e r v e s h i s b e h a v i o r and l i s t e n s to

h i m s e l f s p e a k i n g , he w i l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s

28

29

in which he engages with one other person alter if a

third person joins the duet.

General Discussion

This research was built primarily upon the work

of Hall, Joos, and Osgood, Their observations and re­

search provided a ground plan for the present study.

Hall, through observation and interviews, pinpointed

specific nonverbal communication cues. By observing

the ways in which communicators use personal space,

he recorded distances between people, visual percep­

tions they have of each other, smells they may detect,

tones of voice, and whether or not they may touch each

other. He concluded that the individual's use of space

is determined by the relationship of the communicators

and the environment or situation of a given time.

Joos' study of language is based upon styles of

communicating. The amount of background material furn­

ished in the conversation, the use of slang, the amount

of verbal participation on the part of all communicators

involved, lapses of silence, extraction, and the use of

jargon, differentiate contexts as to language style.

The Osgood study, used as a basis for this research,

is based upon an interest in hov/ motivation manifests

itself in the linguistic cues of a communicator. By

employing the ttr, syllable number, modification index,

30

phrase repetition number, and the use of allness terms,

Osgood supported his hypothesis that communicators in

highly motivated states use language differently from

those in low motivational states.

By the application of Hall's communication dis­

tances, Joos' style categories, and the measures which

Osgood found workable, this research has isolated spec­

ific linguistic cues in personal and social communication

contexts. The independent variables, t t r , syllable num­

ber, noun-verb/adjective-adverb ratio (modification

index), segment length, segment number, personal pro­

nouns, and phrase repetition, have proven to account

for 59? of the difference between personal and social

communication contexts. A set of specific cues have

thus been isolated.

Discussion of the Variables

The purpose of the following discussion will be

to clarify the meanings of the eight variables used in

this study and to interpret further the results.

The type/token ratio, which accounted for 39^ of

the variance between contexts, is a measure of language

diversification. After each one hundred word scene had

been subjected to the t t r and the raw scores recorded,

a mean score of 66.00 was found in the personal context,

indicating that there is an average of 66 different words

31

used by the respect ive characters in each of the nine

personal scenes. The same characters , when engaged in

a social in te rac t ion , used an average of 75 d ifferent

words, an increase of nine un i t s per character going

from personal to social in te rac t ions . As the topics

discussed increased within the social context,*so,

na tu ra l ly , would the number of different words used

increase . The more formal se t t ing of the social con­

tex t might also account for increased vocabulary diver­

s i f i ca t i on , pa ra l l e l ing the idea of Joos that consul­

t a t i v e s ty le (social context) requires more background

and cannot afford the omission present in casual s tyle

(personal context ) .

The average segment (section of uninterrupted

dialogue) in the personal context contains 13.36 words.

As the character goes into the social context, his aver­

age segment contains 20.12 words. In other words, when

he i s communicating in a social se t t ing , he speaks for

longer periods of time, which could be accounted for

in the formal s ty le described by Joos. Increased form­

a l i t y requi res more words and, thus, longer segments.

The average noun-verb/adjective-adverb ra t io goes

from 3.25 in the personal context to 2.75 in the social

context . The higher r a t i o , according to Osgood's use

of the measure, denotes l e s s qua l i f ica t ion and higher

motivation than the lower r a t i o . In terms of th i s study.

32

these ratios signify that there is less qualification

in the personal context than in the social context.

An increase in adjective-adverb usage also denotes

greater formality, such as would be experienced in a

social setting.

There was very little difference in the syllable

count from one context to the other. It was expected

that the number of syllables would increase in the

social setting. There was an average of 1.20 syllables

per word in the personal context and an average of 1.25

syllables per word in the social context. These parti­

cular characters obviously felt no compulsion to use

bigger words in social settings.

The average number of segments in each scene in­

creased from 7.11 in the social context to 10.00 in

the personal context, indicating that there was more

frequent interruption and response from the listener

in the personal setting. One might expect more mutual

exchange in the conversation of two people in a personal

interaction.

There was greater phrase repetition in the personal

context than in the social context. The average number

of phrase repetitions increased from 1.22 in the social

context to 3.00 in the personal context, supporting the

Phillips and Metzger concept that personal interactions

may be more highly motivated than social interactioi^s.

33

Just as Osgood found that increased repetition was in­

dicative of increased motivation, so do these scores

indicate increased motivation or need fulfillment in

personal interactions.

There was increased use of personal pronouns as

the characters went from social to personal contexts.

An average of I8.33 personal pronouns per one hundred

words were found within the social context. An average

of 21.11 personal pronouns were found in the personal

context. The increase was slightly less than three

units and is not statistically significant; yet, it

is an observable trend. In examining the raw scores

on each character, the more highly need-oriented scenes

yielded the greater amount of personal pronouns. This

measure seems to indicate that increased need on the

part of the communicator will result in greater use

of personal pronouns.

The number of allness terms found in this data was

so small that the Multiple Regression Analysis showed

it not to be a significant measure of the variance

between the contexts. There were slightly more all­

ness terms found in the social context than in the per­

sonal context. If a much larger sample were to continue

in that direction, it might denote the tendency of com­

municators to use more polarized terminology in social

groups than in personal situations. The use of allness

34

terms, according to Osgood, signifies a drive to use

words which permit no exception. The need to be cor­

rect and absolute could be manifested in an increase

in allness term usage.

The scores discussed in the preceding paragraphs

are mean scores obtained from the data. The figures

which were used in the Stepwise Multiple Regression

Analysis were the raw.scores obtained from analysis

of the words spoken by each character within his two

communication contexts. The Regression Analysis placed

the variables in their order of importance in distin­

guishing the linguistic cues of a communicator (the

character in the play) as he goes from a personal

situation into a social situation. Seven of the eight

variables fit into a linear equation. Although the

ttr and the segment length variables dominated the

equation, the remaining five c3id account for a small

portion of the difference between contexts and, there­

fore, should not be dismissed. It should be stressed

that these results are descriptive of this partifular

study. It would be premature to generalize and make

assumptions as to the linguistic behaviors of all com­

municators in personal and/or social situations.

Observations and Implications

The question now arises as to what accounts for the

35

other kl% of difference between contexts and how this

unknown might be identified. The most obvious possi­

bility is that there are other variables which this

study has not tapped. For example, the topic being

discussed and the emotional intensity of the language

used might be indicators as to the context.

The subjects discussed in the personal communica­

tion contexts included divorce, alcoholism, marriage,

love, sex, and life goals. The subjects discussed in

the social context are; coffee, movies, money, clothes,

babies, ballgames, neighbors, kids, jail, health, travel,

theater, marriage, and love. Subject matter in social

contexts is much less personal and more widely diverse

than the subject matter in personal contexts. It might

be expected that people talk about personal items such

as divorce, sex, love, and life goals with one other

person, such as, a husband, wife, or intimate friend,

rather than at a social gathering. Hall lists topics

of conversation as part of his criteria indicating con­

text. Examination of the eighteen scenes used in this

study indicates that the closer in relation the com­

municators are to each other (father-son, husband-

wife, etc.), the more personal the subjects discussed

are likely to be.

Another observation may be made from examination

of these scenes. The parties involved in the personal

36

situations seem more goal oriented than those in social

situations. There is heightened motivation to fulfill

a particular need. This observation is apparent in the

topic being discussed and by greater use of emotionally

charged phrases such as the following:

"I don't like him" "stop being mad" "You have no strength" "you yell at me"i "I appreciate you, dear", "Don't wanna lose"^ "you better beat it" "leave me alone" "keep on kicking me"3 "I can't bear" "I'll miss you" "I was so jealous"^ "Iiiniat a cluck you a r e " . "some goddamn"-5 "get d ivorces" ^ "We've been happy"" "To endure s i l ence" " I t ' s a p i t y " "If you were dead" " I ' v e lost""^ " I ' v e heard you r a i s e your voice" "make that drink your last one"^ "solve our own problems" "You're drunk" "hotel lobby whores"^

Although they are lifted out of context, these phrases

stand as examples of heightened emotional language

usage. The followir g examples came from the social

contexts:

"You are a liar"^^ "The hell with him"- - "you're like a devil"- " . .^

"he's not completely sure it's hiw own kid"-L:>

The phrases are of basically the same emotional level,

but there are considerably fewer to be found within the

37

social context.

Discussion of the Plays and Playwrights

Similarities found within each context in the use

of subject matter and of emotionally-laden language lead

to another area for discussion, that being the plays and

playwrights themselves. It was of vital importance to

this researcher that these plays fit into the criteria

set up for realistic drama. The ideal data for this

study would have been actual situations in which people

might be observed and their exact utterances recorded.

The presence of an observer, a tape recorder, and a

staged situation would seem to inhibit, perhaps complete­

ly negate, personal or social communication interactions.

The use of words which came from the mind and heart of

an observer of life seemed to be the best way to study

true to life dialogue. For the average playgoer, or

reader of literary work, the judgment of what is real

and true is simple. It is being able to read fiction,

or observe it on the stage, and simply say to oneself,

"Yes, I've been there". The popularity and acceptance

which the public has heaped upon these writers is only

part of the success which they have enjoyed. Williams,

O'Neill, Miller, Inge, Albee, and Gilroy have won the

Pulitzer Prize, the highest honor bestowed upon a play­

wright. Hellman, Odets, and Wishengrad have won the

38

acclaim of the New York drama critics. Whether or not

the similarity of skills which this study reveals about

these playwrights holds any implication as to the makings

of successful realistic drama is speculative. The intent

of this study was not to study playwriting techniques, but,

instead, to use the dialogues found in these plays as a

representation of, or substitute for, actual dialogue.

Yet, to make these speculations is interesting. Attempt­

ing to tap the reservoir of creativity is to do what

many have attempted. The theater scholars of the late

nineteenth century were making such attempts when they

set up a formula in the form of the well made play. The

nine plays in this study fit the criteria of the well made

play; however, there are probably many, many playwrights

who have attempted to write according to the precepts

of the well made play and have not gained the acceptance

which these writers have enjoyed. To say that there are

formulas and criteria which will guarantee a certain re­

sult would be naive, if not absurd, but, each time some

bit of similarity is observed, such as the variables set

up for this study, there is cause for speculation.

The lifestyles and background of these playv/rights

are varied. They come from different sections of the

United States, different economic and social backgrounds,

and from a variety of educational levels. It is some­

what amazing that, in spite of their differences and the

39

variety of settings in which they have placed their

characters, the language they use is so similar. They

share one very strong common bond. That is, that they

write about the society and the people v/hich they have

observed, which is, as Brockett states, the only essen­

tial ingredient in the writing of realistic drama.

Literature and Space Perception

At this point of the discussion it seems desirable

to comment on that portion of the study which dealt with

distance perception in interpersonal communication. In

the introductory portion of this thesis reference is made

to the use of literature as a basis for the study of

space and man's concept of interpersonal space. Hall

cites Shakespeare, Thoreau, and Kafka, in particular, as

being writers who convey a sense of space to the reader.

Subjects in this study recognized interpersonal space,

or distance, within the dramatic literature used. ViJhile

the study by Leginski and Izzett tested a listener's con­

cept of space as a result of hearing literature read aloud,

the subjects in this study were given only printed mater­

ial to read, and their distance responses were based

totally upon the content of the printed material. The

responses given in the Leginski and Izzett study were

based upon the style of delivery employed by the actors

on tape. The results of both studies are similar. Subjects

4o

in this study and in the Leginski and Izzett study were

accurate in their perceptions of distance zones as per

Hall's criteria., A comparison of the two and the re­

sults reported are important because these results con­

firm and support Hall's theory that literature has woven

into it a concept of space, which may be transmitted to

a reader. An expansion of the test employed in this

study to include questions pertaining to the perceived

involvment, or lack of involvment on the part of the char­

acters, should yield interesting results. Subjects, who

must attempt to make distance judgments based entirely

upon content and are able to do so, must surely have some

cultural basis for making those judgments. Locating the

source of those judgments could be a completely different

direction for research.

Summary

A. number of observations may be made from the find­

ings in this study. As has already been stated and

restated, the independent variables do fit into a linear

equation which accounts for a portion of the variance

between personal and social communication contexts.

Secondly, dramatic literature has been shown to be a

useful source of data for studying interpersonal commun­

ication. A third observation may be made in regard to

the effect of motivation upon encoding behavior. Highly

41

motivated circumstances seem to lower the level of lan­

guage diversification of the communicator. Finally,

printed literature has possibilities for the study of

ways in which communicators perceive interpersonal space.

This study has had as its major intent the observa­

tion and description of the linguistic differences in

personal and social communication contexts. The mea­

sures have been used from a purely structural point of

view. There has been no attempt to approach the lan­

guage from a semantic or stylistic viewpoint. There has

been no established theory to accept or reject. Rather,

there has been a very limited amount of previous study

in this particular area of linguistic analysis upon

which to build a construct.

The results established by the use of Multiple Re­

gression Analysis are significant in regard, to this

particular sample. An experimxental study in which the

language of communicators is recorded and analyzed might

or might not yield results similar to the ones obtained

in this study. Although such a study would be quali­

fied by the presence of an observer, it might be a way

in.which to ascertain whether or not the variables used

here would once again account for variance in the lan­

guage of interpersonal communication.

NOTES

Joseph Mersand, ed., Three Plays About Business In America. Arthur Miller, "All My Sons", Act III (New York: Washington Square Press, I969), p. 257.

^Clifford Odets, The Country Girl, Act II, Sc. 1 (New York: The Viking Press, 1950)' PP. 8O-81.

^Eugene O'Neill, The Emperor Jones, Anna Christie, The Hairy Ape. "Anna Christie", Act IV (New York: The Modern Library, 1937), PP. 168-I69.

\illiam Inge, Natural Affection, Act III, Sc. 3 (New York: Random House, I963), pp. 109-110.

^Edward Albee, ;Jho ' s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Act I (New York: Atheneum, I967), pp. 3-^.

Lillian Hellman, The Collected Plays, "The Autumn Garden", Act I (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971), P. 475.

n 'Morton Wishengrad, The Rope Dancers, Act II,

Sc. 3 (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1958), pp. 88-90.

^Tennessee Williams, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, Act I (New York: Dramatists Play Service, Inc., 1958), pp. 14-15.

°Frank D. Gilroy, The Subject Was Roses, Act I, Sc. 3 (New York: Random House, 1965), pp. I65-I66.

Wishengrad, p. 45.

.l^Gilroy, pp. 137-138.

l^O'Neill, pp. I4l-l42.

13Aibee, p. 71.

42

LIST OF REFERENCES

Albee, Edward. Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? New York; Atheneum, 1967.

Bowman, Walter Parker, and Ball, Robert Hamilton. Thea-re Language. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 196I.

Brockett, Oscar G. The Theatre: An Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Craig, Hardin, ed. The Complete VJorks Of Shakespeare. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1961.

Dietrich, R.F., Carpenter, William E., and Kerrane, Kevin. The Art Of Modern Drama. New York: Holt, Rine­hart, and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Gassner, John. Theatre At The Crossroads: Plays and Playwrights Of The Mid-Century American Stage. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, I960.

Gilroy, Frank D. The Subject Was Roses. New York: Ran­dom House, 1965.

Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Double-day & Company, Inc., 1969.

Hawes, Leonard C. "Alternative Theoretical Bases: To­ward A Presuppositional Critique." Communication Quarterly, 25 (Winter 1977), 64.

Hellman, Lillian. The Collected Plays. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971.

Inge, William. Natural Affection. New York: Random House, 19' 3"

Jordan, William J., and Powers, VJilliam G. "An Investi­gation Of Apprehension And Situational Stress." Unpublished Paper, 1977.

Joos, Martin. The Five Clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., I967.

43

44

Kenyon, John Samuel. American Pronunciation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr Publishing Co., 1951.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations Of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,* Inc., 1973.

Leginski, Walter, and Izzett, Richard R. "Linguistic Styles As Indices For Interpersonal Distance." Journal of Social Psychology. 91 (December 1973), 291-304.

Mersand, Joseph, ed. Three Plays About Business In Amer­ica. New York; Washington Square Press, 1969.

Nathan, George Jean. The Theatre In The Fifties. New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.

Nicholas, Johnette Darlyne. "A Quantitative Analysis Of Gloria Steinem's Persuasive Discourse." M.A. Thesis Texas Tech University, 1975.

Nie, Norman H., et al. Statistical Package For The Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Odets, Clifford. The Country Girl. New York: The Vik­ing Press, 1950,

O'Neill, Eugene. The Emperor Jones, Anna Christie, The Hairy Ape. New York: The Modern Library, 1937.

Osgood, Charles E. "Some Effects Of Motivation On Style Of Encoding." Language and Style. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge, Mass.; The M.I.T. Press, I96O. 293-306.

Phillips, Gerald M., and Metzger, Nancy J. Intimate Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,

T9W. ~ Williams, Tennessee. Cat On A Hot Tin Roof. New York:

Dramatists Play Service, Inc., 1958.

Wishengrad, Morton. The Rope Dancers. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1958.

APPENDIX

A. Booklet A: Distance Test for Personal and Social Contexts

B. Booklet B: Distance Test for Personal and Social Contexts

^5

APPENDIX A; BOOKLET A; DISTANCE TEST

FOR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS

1

ANN. Do t h e y s t i l l remember t h e c a s e , J o e ? Do t h e y t a l k a b o u t you?

KELLER. The o n l y one s t i l l t a l k s a b o u t i t i s my w i f e .

MOTHER. T h a t ' s b e c a u s e you keep on p l a y i n g p o l i c e m a n w i t h t h e k i d s . A l l t h e i r p a r e n t s h e a r o u t of you i s j a i l , j a i l , j a i l .

KELLER. A c t u a l l y what happened was t h a t when I g o t home from t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y t h e k i d s go t v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n me. You know k i d s . I was l i k e t h e e x p e r t on t h e j a i l s i t u a t i o n . And a s t i m e p a s s e d t h e y g o t i t con fused a n d . . . I ended up a d e t e c t i v e .

MOTHER. E x c e p t t h a t t h e y d i d n ' t g e t i t c o n f u s e d . (To Ann . ) He h a n d s o u t p o l i c e badges from t h e P o s t T o a s t i e s b o x e s .

ANN, Gosh, i t ' s wonde r fu l t o h e a r you l a u g h i n g ab o u t i t .

CHRIS. Why, w h a t ' d you e x p e c t ?

ANN. The l a s t t h i n g I remember on t h i s b l o c k was one word . . . " M u r d e r e r s ! " Remember t h a t , Ka te? . . .l\1rs . Hammond s t a n d i n g i n f r o n t of ou r house and y e l l i n g t h a t w o r d . . . S h e ' s s t i l l a r o u n d , I suppose?

MO THER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

T h e y ' r e a l l s t i l l a r o u n d .

D o n ' t l i s t e n t o h e r . Every S a t u r d a y n i g h t t h e whole gang i s p l a y i n ' p o k e r i n t h i s a r b o r . A l l t h e o n e s who y e l l e d m u r d e r e r t a k i n ' my money now

D o n ' t J o e , s h e ' s a s e n s i t i v e g i r l , d o n ' t f o o l h e r . (To Ann. ) They s t i l l remember ab o u t Dad. I t ' s d i f f e r e n t w i t h h i m . . . ( i n d i c a t e J o e ) . . . h e was e x o n e r a t e d , your f a t h e r ' s s t i l l t h e r e . That why I w a s n ' t so e n t h u s i a s t i c abou t your coming.

46

47

Honestly, I know how sensitive you are, and I told Chris, I said...

KELLER. Listen, you do like I did and you'll be all right. . The day I come home, I got out of my car; but not in front of the house, on the corner. You should have been there. Everybody knew I was getting out that day, the porches were loaded. Picture it now, none of them believed I was innocent.

On the following six inch interval scale, how far is Keller from the remainder of the people?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" _30" 36" 42"

48"_ 5 ' 6 ' 7' 8' 9' 10 '

GRIGGS. A l l r i g h t . Rose . You ' re charming.

ROSE. You won ' t even walk over wi th me, j u s t to t he door?

GRIGGS. C e r t a i n l y I w i l l .

ROSE. No, you d o n ' t have t o . I j u s t wanted to see i f you would. Wil l you c a l l for me, a t twelve , say?

GRIGGS. No.

ROSE. Then w i l l you meet me a t twe lve , a t t h e t ave rn?

GRIGGS. No. What misch ie f i s t h i s . Rose?

ROSE, I s i t m i sch ie f to want to t a l k with you?

GRIGGS. Again? Tonight? And every n i g h t and every day? The same t h i n g s over and over? We're worn o u t , Rose, both of u s . There i s no more to say .

ROSE. No more to say . Do people ge t d i v o r c e s , a f t e r t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s , j u s t by say ing they want them and t h a t ' s a l l and walking off?

GRIGGS. I suppose some men do . But I h a v e n ' t walked off and I have s a id a l l I know how to say.

48

ROSE, But you haven't really explained anything to me. You tell me that you want a divorce...And I ask why, why, why. We've been happy together.

How far is Griggs from Rose?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30"

48"_ 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 '

36"

9'.

42"

10'

JUDGE. C l o u d i n g o v e r . . . I doub t i t w i l l r a i n t h o u g h . R a i n - c l o u d s s t a r t a h u r t i n g i n my a n k l e .

DOLLY. He s t o l e my s i s t e r ' s money.

JUDGE.

DOLLY.

JUDGE.

DOLLY.

JUDGE.

DOLLY.

Amos d i d ?

Her f r i e n d from C h i c a g o . The D o c t o r . Should I go home? Mrs . County t h i n k s s o . Be f o r g i v e n . F o r g i v e . E x c e p t . . . f o r g i v i n g . . . t h a t fo r me h a s a l w a y s meant g i v i n g w a y . . . l o s i n g myse l f u n t i l I d o n ' t know I c a n do what you s a i d we m u s t .

What we m u s t . . . ?

Find out who we truly are. That is what you said. More than likely...I would discover that I am no one.

You are very much someone.

A spirit? Well, I think spirits are silly things, ghostly things. I want to shed...like the leaves that fall and show the eternal shape and person of the tree. I want to be seen as this person...for Verena to see this woman that I am.

0

How far is the Judge from Dolly?

__6" 12" 18" 24" 30".

48" 5' 6' 7' 8'

36". 42"

9' 10'

49

BERNIE. How i s t h e co ld?

FRANK. Under c o n t r o l .

GEORGIE. Why d o n ' t you t e l l him w h a t ' s b o t h e r i n g you?

FRANK. What ' s b o t h e r i n g me?

GEORGIE. Cook and t h e n o t i c e s , for i n s t a n c e .

FRANK. I j u s t wondered why he d i d n ' t come back, t h a t ' s a l l . I s he mad? I mean, l e t ' s face i t , they w e r e n ' t e x a c t l y money n o t i c e s .

GEORGIE. Frank, Mr. Dodd b e l i e v e s i n you. I c a n ' t he lp you i f y o u ' r e w o r r i e d . . . h e can .

FRANK. But I 'm not wor r i ed . He ' s got h i s own headaches , d e a r .

BERNIE. Frank, y o u ' r e a t a l e n t . . . I expect to pay for t h a t . I d o n ' t expect you to be easy and conven­i e n t . . . I ' m no f o o l . Now, does anyth ing s e r i o u s l y bo the r you?

FRANK, Wouldn' t I t e l l you i f i t d id?

BERNIE. I t h i n k you would.

GEORGIE, Did you or d id you not t e l l me, t e n minutes ago, r i g h t i n t h i s room, t h a t you wanted to hand i n your n o t i c e l

FRANK. Well , for c r y i n g out loud! I f a man c a n ' t say any th ing i n a gag! Have to watch my s t e p . . . c a n ' t open my mouth no more!

BERNIE. Your wife says s h e ' s t h i n k i n g of r e t u r n i n g to New York.

GEORGIE. I t o l d you no th ing of t h e s o r t !

FRANK. I'Jhat do you mean, New York?

GEORGIE. Y e s . . . I might go back to New York.

BERNIE. What i s t h i s ? ( I n d i c a t e s a b o t t l e of med ic ine . )

FRANK. Cough s y r u p . P i n e , t a r , c h e r r i e s . . . a whole bush

TEXAS TECH LIBRARY

50

i n a b o t t l e l

BERNIE. Do you know i t ' s l a c e d wi th twenty-two p e r c e n t aocohol?

FRANK, Alcohol? Yeah, t h e r e ' s a l c o h o l i n i t , a l l r i g h t . I asked Georgie to ge t me some s t u f f to l o o s e n me up i n t h e c h e s t , and t h i s i s what she brought me back.

How f a r i s Frank from t h e o t h e r people?

0 6 " 12 " 18 " 24" 30 " 36 " 42 "

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10 '

5

JAMES. You d o n ' t have to work now.

MARGARET. I t q u i e t s me. And we need t h e money.

JAMES. I thought I heard her s t i r . . . I s a i d , I thought I heard her s t i r .

MARGARET. I heard what you s a i d .

JA.MES. That w a s n ' t t r u e . I d i d n ' t hear any th ing .

MARGARET. Which i s ha rde r for you, James?

JAMES. Harder?

MARGARET. To endure s i l e n c e or to t e l l t h e t r u t h ?

JAMES. I d o n ' t know. They a r e both d i f f i c u l t .

MARGARET. I d i d n ' t say d i f f i c u l t . I sa id ha rd .

JAMES. The words a r e t h e same.

MARGARET. I am ha rd , you a r e d i f f i c u l t .

JAMES. You sew, wi th a sharp n e e d l e .

MARGARET. I t ' s a p i t y I 'm your wi fe , I would have been an amusing companion. What a r e you pretending to r ead?

51

JAMES. A new book.

MARGARET. Where did you get it?

JAMES. Yes. It might amuse you. I was in a public place frequented by certain well-known literary figures. I overheard two gentlemen discussing this book. I ventured to express an opinion, then I...uh.!.

MARGARET. Talked.

JAMES. Why did you say I was pretending to read it?

MARGARET. If you were dead in your coffin, you would pretend you were dead and in your coffin.

JAMES. That's what first attracted me to you; your path­ological urge to tell the truth. Margaret, what attracted you to me?

MARGARET. Why should I tell you that?

JAMES. Because you have never told me.

MARGARET. It's done now.

JAMES. That makes it more important. Tell me what I've lost so I can have it.

MARGARET. I have work.

JAMES. I used to read to you when you sewed. Shall I read to you now?

MARGARET. Since you must either talk or die, you might

as well read.

How fa r i s James from Margaret?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10 '

BURKE. For the love of God, tell me then, what is it that's preventing you wedding me when the two of

52

us has love? ( I n d i c a t e s C h r i s . ) I s i t g i v i n g heed to t h e l i k e of t h a t o ld fool ye a r e ? and him h a t i n g me and f i l l i n g your ea r s f u l l of bloody l i e s a g a i n s t me? ^

CHRIS. Yes , Anna b e l i e v e me, n o t you! She know h e r o l d f a t h e r d o n ' t l i k e you .

ANNA, (To C h r i s . ) You s i t down, do you h e a r ? Where do you^come m b u t t i n g i n and making t h i n g s worse? Y o u ' r e l i k e a d e v i l , you a r e l Good Lord , and I was b e g i n n i n g t o l i k e you, b e g i n n i n g t o f o r g e t a l l I ' v e g o t h e l d up a g a i n s t you!

CHRIS. You a i n ' t g o t n u t t i n g f o r h o l d a g a i n s t me, Anna.

ANNA. A i n ' t I j u s t ! W e l l , lemme t e l l y o u . . . S a y , Mat, I ' m s u r p r i s e d a t you . You d i d n ' t t h i n k a n y t h i n g h e ' d s a i d . . .

BURKE. S u r e , what e l s e would i t be?

ANNA. Th ink I ' v e eve r p a i d any a t t e n t i o n t o h i s c r a z y b u l l ? Gee, you must t a k e me f o r a f i v e - y e a r - o l d k i d .

BURKE. I d o n ' t know how t o t a k e you, w i t h you s a y i n g t h i s one m i n u t e and t h a t t h e n e x t .

ANNA. W e l l , he h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t .

BURKE. Then^what i s i t h a s ? T e l l me, and d o n ' t keep me w a i t i n g and s w e a t i n g b l o o d .

ANNA. I c a n ' t t e l l y o u . . . a n d I w o n ' t . I go t a good r e a ­s o n . . . a n d t h a t ' s a l l you need t o know. I c a n ' t m a r r y you, t h a t ' s a l l t h e r e i s t o i t .

How f a r i s Anna from t h e o t h e r p e o p l e ?

0 6" 1 2 " 1 8 " 24" 30" 36 "_

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 •

42"

1 0 '

7

MARGARET. Lean on me.

53

BRICK. No, j u s t g i v e me my c r u t c h .

MARGARET. L e a n on my s h o u l d e r !

BRICK, I d o n ' t want t o l e a n on your s h o u l d e r . I want my c r u t c h . Give me my c ru- tch . Are you go ing t o g i v e me my c r u t c h o r do I have t o g e t down on my k n e e s on t h e f l o o r a n d . . .

MARGARET. H e r e , h e r e , t a k e i t , t a k e i t !

BRICK. T h a n k s .

MARGARET. T h a t ' s t h e f i r s t t i m e I ' v e h e a r d you r a i s e your v o i c e i n a l o n g t i m e . B r i c k . A c r a c k i n t h e w a l l ? Of composure?

BRICK. I t j u s t h a s n ' t happened y e t , Maggie .

MARGARET. What?

BRICK. The c l i c k I ge t - i n my head when I ' v e had enough of t h i s s t u f f t o make me p e a c e f u l . ( I n d i c a t e s d r i n k . ) W i l l you do me a f a v o r ?

MARGARET, Maybe I w i l l . What f a v o r ?

BRICK. W i l l you p l e a s e keep your v o i c e down?

MARGARET. I ' l l do you t h a t f a v o r . I ' l l speak i n a w h i s ­p e r , i f no t s h u t up c o m p l e t e l y , i f you w i l l do me a f a v o r and make t h a t d r i n k your l a s t one t i l l a f t e r t h e p a r t y .

BRICK. What p a r t y ?

MARGARET. Big D a d d y ' s b i r t h d a y p a r t y .

BRICK. I s t h i s Big D a d d y ' s b i r t h d a y ?

MARGARET. You know t h i s i s Big D a d d y ' s b i r t h d a y !

BRICK. No, I d o n ' t . I f o r g o t .

MARGARET. W e l l , I remembered i t f o r you .

BRICK. Good f o r you , Maggie .

MARGARET. You j u s t have t o s c r i b b l e a few l i n e s on t h i s c a r d .

5i

How f a r i s Margaret from Brick?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5 ' _ 6 ' 7 ' 8 9 ' __10 '

8

MARTHA. George.talks disparagingly about the little bugger because...well, because he has problems.

GEORGE. The little bugger has problems? What problems has the little bugger got?

MARTHA. Not the little bugger... stop calling him that! You! You've got problems.

GEORGE. I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life.

HONEY. Neither have I.

NICK. Honey...

MARTHA. George ' s b i g g e s t problem about t h e l i t t l e . . . a b o u t our son, about our g r e a t b ig son, i s t h a t deep down i n t h e p r i v a t e - m o s t p i t of h i s gu t , h e ' s no t comple te ly sure i t ' s h i s own k i d .

My God, y o u ' r e a wicked woman,

I ' v e t o l d you a m i l l i o n t i m e s , b a b y . . . I wouldn ' t conce ive with anyone but y o u . . . y o u know t h a t , baby.

GEORGE.

MARTHA.

GEORGE. A deeply wicked p e r s o n .

HONEY. My, my, my, my. Oh, my.

NICK. I 'm not su re t h a t t h i s i s a sub j ec t f o r . . .

GEORGE. Martha ' s l y i n g . I want you to know t h a t , r i g h t now Martha's, l y i n g . There are very few th ings i n t h i s world t h a t I am sure of . . .na t ional bound­a r i e s , the l eve l of the ocean, p o l i t i c a l a l l e g i a n c e , p r a c t i c a l m o r a l i t y . . . n o n e of these would I s take my s t i c k on any more . . . bu t the one th ing in t h i s

55

whole s i n k i n g world t h a t I am sure of i s my part­n e r s h i p i n t h e . . . c r e a t i o n of o u r . . . b l o n d - e y e d , b l u e - h a i r e d , . . s o n .

HONEY. Oh, I 'm so g lad l

MARTHA. That was a ve ry p r e t t y speech, George.

GEORGE. Thank you, Martha .

MARTHA. You r o s e to t h e o c c a s i o n , . .good. Real good.

HONEY. W e l l . . . r e a l w e l l .

NICK. H o n e y . . .

GEORGE. Martha knows...she knows better.

MARTHA, I know better. I been to college like every­body else.

How far is Martha from the others?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9' 10 '

JOHN, N e t t i e ? I had a good t ime t o n i g h t .

NETTIE. So d id I .

JOHN. Did you r e a l l y ? Or v/ere you p u t t i n g i t on for h i s sake?

NETTIE. I r e a l l y d i d .

JOHN. So d id I .

NETTIE. I ' l l s e t t h e alarm for n i n e - f i f t e e n .

JOHN. Now t h a t h e ' s back w e ' l l have l o t s of good t i m e s .

NETTIE. What ' s wrong between you and I has no th ing to do wi th him.

JOHN. I d i d n ' t say i t d i d .

56

NETTIE. We have to so lve our own prob lems .

JOHN. Of c o u r s e .

NETTIE. They c a n ' t be so lved i n one n i g h t .

JOHN. I know.

NETTIE. One n i c e evening d o e s n ' t make eve ry th ing d i f f e r - ' e n t ,

JOHN. Did I say i t d id?

NETTIE. I guess you d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d .

JOHN, I f o rgo t how n i c e you smel led .

NETTIE. Y o u ' l l s p o i l e v e r y t h i n g .

JOHN. I want t h i n g s r i g h t between u s .

NETTIE. You t h i n k t h i s i s going to make them r i g h t ?

JOHN. We have to s t a r t some p l a c e .

NETTIE. S t a r t ?

JOHN. B le s s and save u s !

NETTIE. T h a t ' s not my idea of a s t a r t .

JOHN. N e t t i e , I want you. . . I want you l i k e I never wanted a n y t h i n g i n my l i f e .

NETTIE. Stop

JOHN. P l e a s e ?

NETTIE, You ' re drunk.

JOHN. Do you t h i n k I could ask a g a i n i f I wasn ' t ?

NETTIE, I 'm not one of your h o t e l lobby whores.

JOHN. I f you were I wouldn ' t have to ask .

How f a r i s John from N e t t i e ?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10 •

57

CLAIRE. Did you l i k e t h e MUSIC MAN. Donnie?

DONNIE. Yah.

SUE. Oh, we a l l though t i t was a wonderful show.

CLAIRE. Vince and I went to see i t i n New York. Claudia Cass idy says t h e Chicago company i s n ' t as good a s t h e New York.

SUE. VJell, some of my f r i e n d s say t h e Chicago company i s b e t t e r .

CLAIRE. You know w h a t ' s p l a y i n g a t t h e Blackstone now? SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH. Vince and I went l a s t week.

VINCE. Oh, t h a t p l a y h u r t me. I been wearing c a s t - i r o n drawers ever s i n c e . You know what they did to t h e guy? They cu t off h i s p a r a p h e r n a l i a . They cu t him off . Yah. Ouch!

CLAIRE, You know. Sue, I d o n ' t know how they l e t shows l i k e t h a t ge t by. I t h i n k something should be done about i t . A l l t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n i t were s i c k , i f you ask me. I d o n ' t see why we c a n ' t have p l a y s about people who a r e r e s p e c r a b l e . I d o n ' t know where t h a t Tennessee Will iams f i n d s t h e c h a r a c t e r s he w r i t e s about , do you?

VINCE. A man w r i t e s a p l a y l i k e t h a t . . . h e ' s got a d i s ­eased mind.

CLAIRE. Oh w e l l , you were so drunk you s l e p t through most of i t .

VINCE. T h a ' s a l l r i g h t . I saw the p a r t where they cu t o f f h i s p a r a p h e r n a l i a . That was enough f e r me. Ouch!

SUE. (Opens her p r e s e n t now) Vince! A b e a u t i f u l c i g a r ­e t t e l i g h t e r .

CLAIRE. I t ' s a new k ind . Sue. When ya r e f i l l i t , ya j u s t pu t i n one of t h o s e l i t t l e doo j igge r s a n d . . .

.SUE. Vince , I 'm embarressed . You s a i d you w e r e n ' t gonna g ive any p r e s e n t s , a n d . . .

VINCE. What t h e h e l l ! Chr is tmas comes but once a y e a r .

SUE. But I d o n ' t have any th ing for you and C l a i r e .

58

VINCE. You ' r e t a k i n g us to d i n n e r , a r e n ' t ya? T h a t ' s a p r e s e n t .

CLAIRE. You know how Vince i s , h e ' s always g i v i n g p r e ­s e n t s . Bes ides , he can deduct 'em.

SUE. (K i s se s Vince) Thanks, Vince . T h a t ' s very sweet of you.

DONNIE. Hey look , Mom! See what I g o t .

SUE. Cowboy b o o t s . I s n ' t t h a t wonderful? Oh, Vince, y o u ' r e a r e a l Santa C l a u s .

CLAIRE. Oh, Chr i s tmas j u s t makes you f e e l l i k e you loved everyone, d o e s n ' t i t ? Merry Chr is tmas , Sue.

VINCE. There Mama goes on t h a t k i s s i n g r o u t i n e a g a i n . C a l l i n t h e ne ighbor s and k i s s them, while y o u ' r e a t i t .

CLAIRE. Oh, you be q u i e t . You t a l k l i k e i t was something t e r r i b l e to k i s s p e o p l e .

VINCE. Then I 'm gonna k i s s everyone, t o o . Merry C h r i s t ­mas, Sue!

SUE. Merry Chr i s tmas , Vince!

VINCE. Merry Chr i s tmas , Donnie!

SUE. Have some eggnog, everyone.

VINCE. I 'm way beyond eggnong. I want some vodka.

DONNIE. Look, Mom.

SUE. Now you can get a job in a TV western.

CLAIRE. See what he gave me. It's the lovliest present he ever gave me.

SUE. Oh, it's lovely, Claire.

VINCE Mama has to have a ring to eat dinner with. Poor lil thing was eatin' dinner with-no ring at all.

BERNIE. That musta set you back, Vince.

VINCE. Ya gotta pay for it when ya get to be my age, Bernie.

CLAIRE. Vince...don't be vulgar.

59

VINCE. VJhere's my vodka, Bernie?

BERNIE. J u s t a minu te , Vince .

VINCE. I want some mus ic . L e t ' s p l a y some music .

SUE. D o n n i e ' s got a new r o c k ' n ' r o l l r e c o r d h e r e . P lay i t for him, Donnie.

How fa r i s Sue from t h e o t h e r people?

0 6 " 12 " 18 " 24" 30 " 36 " 42 "

48" 5 ' 6 • 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10 •

APPENDIX B; BOOKLET B; DISTANCE TEST

FOR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS

1

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

What does he want h e r e ?

H i s f r i e n d i s n o t home.

I d o n ' t l i k e him m i x i n g i n so much.

I t ' s t o o l a t e , J o e . He knows.

How d o e s he know?

He g u e s s e d a l o n g t i m e a g o .

I d o n ' t l i k e t h a t .

What you d o n ' t l i k e . . .

Yeah, what I d o n ' t l i k e .

You c a n ' t b u l l y o u r s e l f t h r o u g h t h i s one , J o e , you b e t t e r be smar t now. T h i s t h i n g . . . t h i s t h i n g i s n o t o v e r y e t .

And what i s she d o i n g up t h e r e ? She d o n ' t come o u t of t h e room.

I d o n ' t know, what i s she do ing? S i t down, s t o p b e i n g mad. You want t o l i v e ? You b e t t e r f i g u r e o u t your l i f e .

She d o n ' t know, does she?

She saw C h r i s s t o r m i n g ou t of h e r e . I t ' s one and o n e . . . s h e knows how t o add .

Maybe I ough t t o t a l k t o h e r ?

D o n ' t a sk me, J o e .

Then who do I a sk? But I d o n ' t t h i n k s h e ' l l do

60

61

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

KELLER.

MOTHER.

anything about it.

You're asking me again.

I'm asking you. What am I, a stranger? I thought I had a family here. What happened to my family?

You've got a family. I'm simply telling you that I have no strength to think any more.

You have no strength. The minute there's trouble you have no strength.

Joe, you're doing the same thing again; all your life whenever there's trouble you yell at me and you think that settles it.

KELLER. Then what do I do? Tell me, talk to me, what do I do?

0

How far is Keller from Mother?

6

48"

.12".

_5\

18".

6'

24" 30"

.7'. 8

36"

.9'

42"

10'

DOLLY. But won ' t t h e y be wor r i ed . Judge? Your family , I mean.

JUDGE. They won ' t be mis s ing me. We're n o t . . . c l o s e t h a t way. I 'm more l i k e a roomer. They l e t me have my room.

CATHERINE. D o l l y h e a r t ' s daddy, o ld Mr. Talbo, every t ime he poured h i s s e l f a l i t t l e t a s t e of something, h e ' d say: H e r e ' s winking a t t he d e v i l . Well . . . . ( S h e r a i s e s her cup of wine . )

COLLIN, CATHERINE, JUDGE. H e r e ' s winking a t t h e . . .

DOLLY. Hush. Hush.

COLLIN. I t ' s on ly an owl. A snowy owl.

DOLLY. I keep i m a g i n i n g . . . Do you t h i n k they w i l l bo the r

62

u s aga in ;

JUDGE, We must be r eady for them. But i f we a r e to de ­fend our p o s i t i o n , we must know what i t i s . We a r e i n t r o u b l e . . . b e c a u s e we a r e t r o u b l e d . Miss D o l l y , how long? T h i r t y , f o r t y yea r s? I t was t h a t f a r ago t h a t I remember y o u . . . r i d i n g to town i n your f a t h e r ' s wagon. . .never g e t t i n g down from t h e wagon because you d i d n ' t want us town c h i l d r e n to see you had no s h o e s .

CATHERINE. What d id I t e l l you? Not a shoe to our name.

JUDGE. A l l t h e y e a r s t h a t I ' v e known you, and never known you, no t ever r ecogn ized what you a r e ; a s p i r i t , a pagan . . .

DOLLY. A pagan?

JUDGE, W e l l . . . a s p i r i t , someone not to be calcula-fced by t h e eye a l o n e . S p i r i t s a r e a c c e p t e r s of l i f e , t h e y g r a n t i t s d i f f e r e n c e s , and consequent ly a r e u s u a l l y on t h e r i g h t s i d e . I t ' s p a r t l y t h a t t h a t makes me want once be fo re I d i e to be r i g h t on t h e r i g h t s i d e .

CATHERINE. You on t h e r i g h t s i d e n o w . . . i f t h a t ' s a l l i t

t a k e s to s a t i s f y you.

How f a r i s t h e Judge from t h e o t h e r people?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42" Z 8" 5 • 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10 •

3

ROSE. Coffee. I mean you drink too much coffee.

MRS. ELLIS. Then it is coffee you wish to go and see?

ROSE Now, now. You're teasing. You know very well I mean Robert Taylor in that thing.

MRS ELLIS. Believe me, I did not know you meant Robert • Taylor in that thing. You know. General

Griggs, after seven summers I have come to

63

the conclusion t h a t your wife considers i t vulgar to mention anything by name. There ' s nothing p a r t i c u l a r l y gentee l about pronouns, my dear . Coffee i s coffee and not i t ,Rober t Taylor i s Robert Taylor and not him, I sup­pose, and a fool i s a fool and not her .

ROSE. I know. I t ' s a naughty h a b i t . Ben has been t e l l ­ing me for yea r s . (To Ben.) Do you l i k e my d re s s , Ben?

GRIGGS. I t ' s n i c e .

ROSE. Have I too much rouge? Know what she used to say? Ben's mother, I mean? She used to say i t before she d ied . She used to say tha t Southern women pa in ted a t r i a n g l e of rouge on t h e i r faces as i f they were going out to square the hypotenuse. Ben came from Boston, and h i s mother was sometimes a l i t t l e sharp about Southerners .

How far i s Rose from the -o the r people?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9' 10 '

4

FRANK. No i t wouldn't matter to you, would i t , i f I took out a gal? Well, would i t ? Would you care i f I d i d n ' t show up some night?

GEORGIE. I'm not exact ly tak ing sealed b ids , Frank.

FRANK. Wanna come out and watch them take a few of these archive spec ia l s?

GEORGIE. No, i t ' s cold out t h e r e .

FRANK. Mad a t Poppa? Not even i f we go back to the same l i f e , same room. . .?

GEORGIE. People don ' t go back to the same l i f e , Frank. They go above i t or below i t , but they don ' t go back.

64

FRANK. But do I s t i l l have t h e c o u n t r y . g i r l ?

GEORGIE. Here I am.

FRANK. I a p p r e c i a t e you d e a r . Don ' t wanna l o s e . But I hope you know t h a t i f not for me, you'ri . - t i l l be on t h e v i n e , i n H a r t f o r d .

GEORGIE. A t o a d s t o o l i n t h e woods. Here, t a k e t h e s e t i s s u e s . . . y o u ' l l need them.

FRANK. Thanks.

GEORGIE. And, Frank, l e a v e t h e b o t t l e h e r e .

FRANK. I need i t , d e a r .

GEORGIE. Over t h i r t y y e a r s of know-how? Leave t h e b o t t l e h e r e .

FRANK. Georg ie , I need i t . I need i t !

How f a r i s Frank from Georgie?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42"

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 • 8 ' 9 • 10 '

5

LIZZIE, -Don't talk like that to my father! You have no right to talk to him like that.

MARGARET. I'm his wife. (To James.) Have you a place to sleep tonight?

JAMES. Yes.

MARGARET. You a r e a l i a r , James Hyland. You have a l ­ways been a l i a r . Show me t h a t money in your pocket to buy a n i g h t ' s l o d g i n g . Show me.

JAMES. Don ' t Margare t , not i n f ron t of t he c h i l d .

MARGARET. I w i l l g ive you f i f t y c e n t s and then y o u ' l l go .

65

JAMES. Good-by Lizzie...

MARGARET. I'll get the money.

LIZZIE. Go, Pa. Please go.

MARGARET. He can't, Lizzie. Shall I tell you why? Be­cause your father knows that fifty cents is forty-nine cents more than pride. James Hy­land, you stand there dumb! Where are all the books you read, the stories, the jokes, the bragging!?

How far is Margaret from the others?

0 6 " _12" 18"_ 24" _30" 36" 42"

48" 5' 6 ' 7 ' 8 • 9' 10 '

ANNA. W e l l , y o u ' v e had your s a y . Now you b e t t e r b e a t i t .

BURKE. And w h a t ' 1 1 you be do ing?

ANNA. VJhat d i f f e r e n c e does i t make t o you?

BURKE. I ' m a s k i n g you!

ANNA. My b a g ' s packed and I go t my t i c k e t . I ' l l go t o New York tomor row.

BURKE. You mean. . . y o u ' l l be d o i n g t h e same a g a i n ?

ANNA. Y e s .

BURKE. Y o u ' l l n o t ! D o n ' t t o r m e n t me w i t h t h a t t a l k ! T i s a s h e - d e v i l you a r e s e n t t o d r i v e me mad en­t i r e l y !

ANNA Oh, f o r Gawd's s a k e . Mat, l e a v e me a l o n e ! Go ' away! D o n ' t you s ee I 'm l i c k e d ? Why do you want

t o k e e p on k i c k i n g me?

BURKE. And d o n ' t you d e s e r v e t h e w o r s t I ' d s ay , God for­g i v e you?

ANNA. Al l r i g h t . Maybe I do. But don ' t rub i t i n . Why a i n ' t you done what you said you was going to? Why a i n ' t you got t h a t ship was going to take you to the o ther s ide of the ear th where you'd never see me again?

How far i s Burke from Anna?

66

0 1 6"

48"

12"

5'

18"

6'

24"

7'

30"

8 ' - •• "9'

36"

- 1 0 '

42"

7

MARGARET.

BIG MAMA.

MARGARET.

BIG MAMA.

MARGARET .

BIG MAMA.

MARGARET,

BIG MAMA.

MARGARET .

What i s i t . Big Mama?

Oh, son! We go t t h e most wonder fu l news abou t Big Daddy. I j u s t had t o r u n up and t e l l you r i g h t t h i s . . . W h a t ' s t h i s door do ing l o c k e d ? You a l l t h i n k t h e r e ' s r o b b e r s i n t h e house?

Big Mama, B r i c k i s d r e s s i n g , h e ' s n o t d r e s s e d y e t .

T h a t ' s a l l r i g h t , i t w o n ' t be t h e f i r s t t i m e I ' v e s e e n B r i c k n o t d r e s s e d . Come on, open t h i s d o o r ! (She e n t e r s . ) W h e r e ' s Br ick? B r i c k ! Hur ry on o u t of t h a t ba th room, son, I j u s t have a second and want t o g i v e you t h e news abou t Big Daddy. I h a t e l o c k e d d o o r s i n a h o u s e .

I ' v e n o t i c e d you do . Big Mama, bu t p e o p l e have g o t t o have some moments of p r i v a c y , d o n ' t t h e y ?

No, ma'am, n o t i n my h o u s e ! What d id you "take o f f t h a t l a c e d r e s s f o r ? I t h o u g h t t h a t l i t t l e l a c e d r e s s was so sweet on you.

I t h o u g h t i t l o o k e d sweet on me, t o o , b u t one of my c u t e l i t t l e t a b l e - p a r t n e r s used i t f o r a n a p k i n , s o . . .

Shoo t , Maggie , you j u s t d o n ' t l i k e c h i l d r e n .

I do so l i k e c h i l d r e n ! Adore t h e m ! . . . w e l l b r o u g h t u p . . .

67

BIG MAMA, Well, why don't you have some and bring them up well, then, instead of all the time pickin' on Gooper's and Mae's?

How far is Margaret from Big Mama?

0 6" 12" 18" 24" " 30" 36" 42"

48"_ __5' _6'__„_7' 8' 9' -10"

8

BERNIE. Do ya know how a man f e e l s . Sue, when he f i n a l l y wakes up and r e a l i z e s h e ' s not gonna make i t ?

SUE. What a r e you t a l k i n g about?

BERNIE. Af te r h e ' s been t a k i n g i t for g ran ted a l l h i s l i f e t h a t h e ' s gonna be a b ig success some day, t h a t he was gonna. . .dunno how to say i t . . .make h i s l i f e coun t .

SUE. B e r n i e , you do coun t . I c a n ' t bear to hear you r u n y o u r s e l f down l i k e t h a t . I t ' s not t r u e .

BERNIE. "Well, maybe I count to you.

SUE. P l e a s e s t a y , B e r n i e . I c a n ' t s tand t h e thought of coming back home i n t h e evening and f ind ing you gone.

BERNIE. Aw, y o u ' l l ge t busy down a t t h e s t o r e and f o r ­g e t a l l about me.

SUE. No, I w o n ' t . I ' l l never be ab l e to walk in to t h i s room wi thou t f e e l i n g you somewhere around. I ] 1 1 never wake up i n t h e morning^ wi thout remembering t h a t once you were t h e r e b e s i d e me.

BERNIE. W e l l . . . I ' l l miss you, t o o . Sue.

SUE. Wi l l you, Bernie?

BERNIE. Want me to t e l l ya something? I d i d n ' t go near C l a i r e l a s t n i g h t . I s l e p t i n t h e gues t room, t i l l Vince came home wi th t h a t menager ie .

SUE. Honest , Bernie?

68

BERNIE. I'm not lying, Sue.

SUE. And I was so jealous of Claire I could have killed her.

BERNIE. To tell the truth, I was about ready to ask you to marry me.

How far is Bernie from Sue?

0 6" 12" 18" 24"_

48"_ 5' _6 • 7'

30"

8'

36" 42"

9' 10'

MARTHA.

GEORGE.

MARTHA..

GEORGE.

MARTHA.

GEORGE,

MARTHA.

GEORGE.

MARTHA.

GEORGE.

MARTHA.,

GEORGE.

MARTHA.

Oh, George!

Wel l , I 'm s o r r y , b u t . . .

What a c luck ! What a c luck you a r e .

I t ' s l a t e , you know? L a t e .

What a dump. Hey, w h a t ' s t h a t from? "What a dump!"

How would I know w h a t . . .

Aw, come on! What ' s i t from? You know. . .

. . . M a r t h a . . .

What i s i t from, fo r C h r i s t ' s sake?

What ' s what from?

I j u s t t o l d you. I j u s t did i t . "What a dump!" Huh? What ' s t h a t from?

I h a v e n ' t t h e f a i n t e s t idea w h a t . . .

Dumbbell! I t ' s from some goddamn Bet te Davis p i c t u r e . . . s o m e goddamn Warner Bro thers E p i c . . .

GEORGE. I c a n ' t remember a l l t h e p i c t u r e s t h a t . . .

69

MARTHA. Nobody's asking you to remember every s ing le goddamn Warner Brothers E p i c . . . j u s t one! One s ing le l i t t l e epic! Bette Davis ge t s p e r i t o n ­i t i s i n the e n d . . . s h e ' s got t h i s big black f r i g h t wig she wears a l l through the p i c t u r e and she ge t s p e r i t o n i t i s , and s h e ' s married to Joseph Gotten or something,. . .

How far i s George from Martha?

0 6" _ 1 2 " _ 18" 24" _ 3 0 " _ 36" 42"

48" 5 • 6' 7 ' 8 ' _9' 10'

10

NETTIE. \iJhat did you forget?

JOHN, Nothing.

NETTIE. Why did you come back?

JOHN. I changed my mind. (To Timmy.) If you still want to go to the ball game, it's a date.

NETTIE. What about Ruskin?

JOHN. The hell with him. Still want to go?

TIMMY. Yes.

NETTIE. What about Wi l l i s?

JOHN, What about Wi l l i s ?

NETTIE. Timmy was going to see him t h i s afternoon.

TIMMY. I ' l l see him tomorrow.

NETTIE. I t o l d him you'd be over today.

TIMMY. Before you even asked me?

NETTIE. I thought sure you'd want t o .

TIMMY. You had no r i g h t to do t h a t .

70

NETTIE. What w i l l I t e l l him?

TIMMY. T e l l him I ' l l be t h e r e tomorrow.

NETTIE. H e ' l l be d i s a p p o i n t e d .

TIMMY. T h a t ' s no t my f a u l t .

JOHN. The game s t a r t s a t t w e l v e .

TIMMY. J u s t have to ge t my t i e .

JOHN, I came out of S t . F r a n c i s and s t a r t e d for t h e sub­way. Was halfway t h e r e when I thought of Mr. F ree ­man; what wou ldn ' t he g ive to be ab le to spend a day wi th h i s son? I t made me t u r n around and come back .

How f a r i s John from t h e o t h e r s ?

0 6 " 12 " 18" 24" 30 " 36 " 42 "

48" 5 ' 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 10"