Non-metaphorical Objects as Alternate Means of Literary Communication in Selected Plays of A. B. Chukuezi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1102.02Keywords:
communication, dramatic objects, non-metaphorical, Chukuezi, Igbo playsAbstract
Emphasis on effective communication has become the concern of many literary scholars. The need to explore where the burden of communication lies in the literary arts resounds among literary critics and beyond. The study sets out to examine how ordinary intentional dramatic objects in selected Igbo plays of A. B. Chukuezi; Udo Ka Mma, Aku Fechaa and Akwa Nwa are utilised to influence and communicate the intents of the drama texts to the audience. The theoretical framework is based on the viewpoint of theatre semiotics. The belief of theatre semiotics is that every part of a play is relevant in the actualisation of the complex whole called the text. The findings suggest that dramatic objects are not mere symbols for stage beautification, but are objects that can connect a text to its audience. They can also illuminate and illustrate the content and context of a text; as well as develop and extend a storyline.
References
Bogatyrev, P. (1938). Semiotics in folk theatre. In L. W. Matejka & I. R. Titunik (Eds.), Semiotics of art: Prague school contributions (pp. 33-49). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brandt, E. & Grunnet, C. (2014). Evoking the future: Drama and props in user-centered design. Malmo: The Interactive Institute.
Brook, P. (1990). The empty space. London: Penguin Books.
Chukuezi, A. B. (1974). Udo ka mma. Ibadan: Oxford University Press Limited.
Chukuezi, A. B. (1979). Aku fechaa. Ibadan: University Press Limited.
Chukuezi, A. B. (1979). Akwa nwa. Ibadan: African Universities Press.
De man, P. (1989). Blindness and insight: Essays in rhetoric of contemporary criticism. London: Routledge.
Elam, K. (1980). The semiotics of theatre and drama. London: Routledge.
Grebanier, B. (1979). Playwriting: How to write for the theatre. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Holland, P. (1978). Brecht, bond, gaskill and the practice of political theatre. Theatre Quarterly, 8, 24-34.
Honzl, J. (1976). Dynamics of sign in the theatre. In L. Metjka & I. R. Tituruk (Eds.), Semiotics of art: Prague school contributions. Canbridge: MIT press.
Jeyifo, B. (1981). Literary drama and the search for a popular theatre in Nigeria. In Y. Ogunbiyi (Ed.), Drama and theatre in Nigeria: A critical source book. Lagos: Nigerian Magazine Publications.
Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series of addresses (pp. 37-51). New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
Losnedahl, K. G. (1992). What may stage props convey about the art of acting.In S. Barbro (Ed.), Records and images of the art of the performer (pp.77-78). Stockholm: Drottningholms Teatermuseum.
Morley, D. (1992). Television audience and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
Nikolarea, E. (1994). A communication model for theatre translation: Versions of Oedipus the king in English. Ph.D thesis, University of Alberta.
Nwaozuzu, U. C. (2007). Beyond the second language dilemma: An excursion into alternate means of communicating meaning for English playwrights of Igbo extraction. Journal of Igbo Studies, 2, 43-48.
Rasmus, M. C. (2018). The narrative functions of props: Portable communication devices in Die Hard (1998) and Die Hard 2 (1990). M. A. dissertation, Lund University.
Sofer, A. (2003). The stage life of props. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Zich, O. (1931). Aesthetics of dramatic art. Prague: Melantrich.
