What does Eliza consider to be her real education

The runaway is an adaptation of the Greek myth of Pygmalion who take flight in love with a statue as it was more square in the understanding of its own committal to writing than the actual women he had observed and grown despondent to. It is a work that closely follows the relationship between society and linguistics, wherein the women is real, exclusively has yet to have her manners sculptured. In particular, it highlights the role of dominion and articulation in relation to identities, depicting this through the subject of Eliza.In this paper the author will be addressing the subject of the short-change and its central character, whilst examining the effects that learning the speech of, what was considered, correct English had on her. Main Body When archetypical completing the text, it is clear that there is an irony in the play that brings forth the now famed sociable and political points to the surface. However, one may be forgiven for considering these points relevant in todays society, though in a more fractured sense. This is because they relate to speech and run-in use in relation to friendly standing.// Although social standing in todays liberal society is becoming an ever more unneeded concept, using someones speech as an indication of someones identity is smooth in evidence. This notion is apparent in the main plot line in which Eliza be be intimates entrapped to the perspective of a natural language system. When adopting the role of the accoster, Eliza adopts a slowly differing identity that emerges with child like astonishment beforehand she changes into what is essentially a different person. It does not continue to be a liberating and learning experience.Rather, the liberation of a woman hiding behind the veil of civility in a bid to expose it, perchance showing 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 world through her former eyes and comes to view it through her new language that cannot be escaped. Essentially, it is through this change in persona that the play delivers its moral warning and trip implication in that the core of the human creation cannot escape from the language that it uses to identify itself with.The language and convention use by those of high society is responsible for each of their perspectives and it is not the person or messs speaking the language. Essentially, if you are to change the persons language, language use and perspective thusly 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 and t he 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 jilted at different times during the play.For example, it first appears that Eliza is rejected from society as her language does not bear on the correct social grouping, stock and/ or class. This is first justified as being because of her use of language, emphasise and the incorrect 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 alone that make it something of note.At one point during the play she makes the self-confidence that speaking properly (meaning without a cockney accent) is barely learning to dance in a in style(predic ate) way, which accentuates this point even further. Essentially, the assertion that she puts forward here relates to the realisation of the superficiality of language in its schematic format as both languages mean exactly the same thing from a pragmatic perspective.At this stop she is learning the meaning of language and the convention of getting from one thing to another via language use. She realises that the single difference is a superficial one as the functional meaning (cause and effect) is the same whichever language is spoken. Essentially, the single different in the language is the significance of the source of referents, which dictate a different context to convention.Therefore, her resultant is that it is merely a state of fashion in which the dancer dances the same, but where one dancer adopts the trendsetting style, the other is overlooked as being able to dance (Baudrillard, 1968). This conclusion relates to the elements of high society that come with the speake rs 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 simply those that do not speak of anything meaningful, when in reality there is simply a clash over the source of referential meaning.