What does Eliza consider to be her real education

The play is an adaptation of the Greek myth of Pygmalion who fell in love with a statue as it was more real in the sagacity of its own composition than the actual women he had observed and grown heartsick to. It is a work that closely follows the coitusship between fraternity and linguistics, wherein the women is real, that has yet to have her manners sculptured. In particular, it bluelights the business office of convention and sum in relation to identities, depicting this finished the subject of Eliza.In this paper the writer will be addressing the subject of the play and its central character, whilst examining the effects that breeding the speech of, what was considered, correct English had on her. Main Body When commencement ceremony completing the text, it is clear that there is an irony in the play that brings onward the now famed kindly and political points to the surface. However, unrivalled may be forgiven for considering these points relevant in todays society , though in a more fractured sense. This is beca social occasion they relate to speech and words use in relation to social standing.// Although social standing in todays idle society is becoming an ever more redundant concept, using mortals speech as an indication of some unitys indistinguishability is still in evidence. This notion is apparent in the main plot line in which Eliza becomes entrapped to the perspective of a new actors line system. When adopting the role of the speaker, Eliza adopts a slowly differing identity that emerges with child like astonishment in advance she changes into what is essentially a various person. It does not continue to be a liberating and learning experience.Rather, the liberation of a woman hiding behind the blot out of civility in a bid to expose it, perhaps presentation the power of the human spirit over class in the process, is lost. That is to say, that on speaking the language through the conventions of class Eliza loses sight of the ground through her former eyes and comes to view it through her new language that cannot be endured. Essentially, it is through this change in persona that the play delivers its moral prototype and cutting implication in that the core of the human being cannot escape from the language that it uses to identify itself with.The language and convention used by those of high society is responsible for each of their perspectives and it is not the person or masss speaking the language. Essentially, if you are to change the persons language, language use and perspective then they themselves will come to define themselves and their being according to the structural meaning inherent to the language that is used by that society. This is indicated throughout Elizas discussions and becomes the main rationale for all that she does.For example, in one part of the play she states that you know I cant go back to the gutter, as you call it, and that I have no real friends in the world but you an d the Colonel (Shaw, 1998). This short extract shows the great division based upon the language being used and the fact that it is represented by a social reality, in this case being social standing. What is interesting about the use of language in relation to others is the way in which Eliza is accepted and spurned at several(predicate) times during the play.For example, it first appears that Eliza is rejected from society as her language does not denote the correct social grouping, stock and/ or class. This is first justified as being because of her use of language, accent and the unreasonable convention. However, it appears on later reading that the convention is of little consequence as she uses the same convention, but put to a different context. Rather, it is the response from others only if that make it some function of note.At one point during the play she makes the assertion that speaking decently (meaning without a cockney accent) is patently learning to dance in a f ashionable way, which accentuates this point even further. Essentially, the assertion that she puts forward here relates to the realization of the superficiality of language in its conventional format as twain languages mean exactly the same thing from a pragmatic perspective.At this lay out she is learning the meaning of language and the convention of getting from one thing to another via language use. She realises that the only difference is a superficial one as the functional meaning (cause and effect) is the same whichever language is spoken. Essentially, the only different in the language is the significance of the source of referents, which dictate a different context to convention.Therefore, her conclusion is that it is merely a state of fashion in which the dancer dances the same, but where one dancer adopts the fashionable style, the other is overlook as being able to dance (Baudrillard, 1968). This conclusion relates to the elements of high society that come with the s peakers of proper English and that are not afforded to those of a poorer language, such as cockney. Those that do not speak the language are hardly those that do not speak of anything meaningful, when in reality there is simply a clash over the source of referential meaning.