The Language of Change

The Language of Change

In the novel Mary Barton, language is used to convey mood as well as religious commitment. Elizabeth Gaskell uses an obvious shift from common language to an almost biblical language when she wants display a change in the mood or the religious manner of the characters. This is most apparent in the dialogue of John Barton, when he either seems to need or has lost his religious fervor. However, some of her intentions can be interpreted in a modern context quite differently than they were intended in the nineteenth century. Gaskell also uses a subtler, possibly unintentional, language shift in various passages to show the mindset of the upper class in contrast to the lower class.

In the beginning of chapter three, after the death of Mary’s mother, John Barton has a common dialect. He says, on page 51, “Nothing could have saved her-there has been some shock to the system” (Gaskell 51). However, a few pages later he is talking to Mary after she says that she will do anything to help him he says, “I know thou wilt. Thou must not fret thyself ill, that’s the first thing I ask. Thou must leave me, and go to bed now, like a good girl as thou art” (Gaskell 53).

This shift in language shows a shift in tone, almost a prayer for divine intervention. M. M. Bakhtin would refer to this as heteroglossia, meaning different languages. In his essay, “Discourse in the Novel,” he states, “Shifts from common language to parodying of generic and other languages and shifts to the direct authorial word may be gradual, or may be on the contrary quite abrupt.” (Bakhtin 302-3).

Gaskell’s shift from common language to a biblical tongue is quite abrupt, as Bakhtin theorizes in all novels, but contrary to Bakhtin’s assumptions that in all novels this is type of shift is an unintentional occurrence, Gaskell’s shift is quite intentional and purposeful.

Bakhtin says, “To one degree or another, the author distances himself from this common language, he steps back and objectifies it, forcing his own intentions to refract and diffuse themselves through the medium of this common view that has become embodied in language (a view that is always superficial and frequently hypocritical)” (Bakhtin 302). I believe that he is trying to say that the author often changes the common language without thinking directly about the shift, but subconsciously adds his own feelings to the language, which often shows his (or in this case her) own bias view of the world. In Mary Barton, however, this is not always the case.

In the case of Mary Barton, Elizabeth Gaskell has a point that she is trying to make, and that point is quite intentional. In the passage where John Barton speaks to Jem Wilson as Barton is dying he says, “Lad! thou hast borne a deal for me. It’s the meanest thing I ever did to leave thee to bear the brunt. Thou, who wert as innocent of any knowledge of it as the babe unborn. I’ll not bless thee for it. Blessing from such as me would not bring thee any good. Thou’lt love Mary, though she is my child” (Gaskell 449). This is a direct shift from the common language that John Barton was using prior to this statement. It seems to reflect a need for forgiveness. The tone is like a catholic confession. The reader is left with the feeling that he is not only asking for forgiveness from Jem, but he is also asking forgiveness from God. Once again, in this passage the author creates this change intentionally contrary to Bakhtin’s assumptions of an author’s shift being unintentional. However, sometimes Gaskell’s intentions can be interpreted differently.

In a modern context, a person who speaks in a biblical dialect is considered pompous and arrogant. We assume that the person is talking as if he/she is God. Early in the novel, when John Barton is speaking to his daughter Mary about her relationship with Jem Wilson he says, “Thou’st played thy cards badly, then…At one time he were desperate fond o’ thee, or I’m much mistaken. Much fonder of thee than thou deservest” (Gaskell 177). Although this is intended to be a father’s concern for his daughter’s well being, it seems more like he is trying to control her, when taken in a modern context. In the nineteenth century it might have been fine to expect a daughter to have a man to take care of her, but in a modern context it is taken as degrading to women to think in such terms. This is an idea where Bakhtin’s theory might apply more clearly to this novel.

Bakhtin states, “The relationship of the author to a language conceived as the common view is not static-it is always found in a state of movement and oscillation that is more or less aliveвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚Ñœ (Bakhtin 302). I take this to mean that the language takes on a life of its own, and can sometimes go beyond what the author had originally intended. In the previous passage, Gaskell might have intended for the change in discourse to show a father’s love for his daughter (much like that of God himself), but it appears to me, over a century later, that this is a domineering type of speech (also much like God in the Bible). There are many other examples of this type of speech in the novel. Early in the novel John Barton is talking about a conversation that he had with Mary’s mother about Mary possibly becoming a lady one day. He says, “Thou’d best not put that nonsense i’ th’ girl’s head I can tell thee; I’d rather see her earning her bread by the sweat of her brow, as the Bible tells her she should do, aye, though she never got butter to her bread, than be like a do-nothing lady, worrying shopmen all morning, and screeching at her pianny all afternoon, and going to bed without having done a good turn to any one of God’s creatures but herself” (Gaskell 39). Once again, this may have been intended as a father wanting his daughter to be raised