AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of The Problem
Literature is forms of someone‟s ideas toward in mind about social
environment around people. Literature comes with beautiful language and it
can be defined as the authors present as a result of contemplation of the
phenomena. Literature as a work of fiction has a more profound
understanding. It is not only a fictional story or a fantasy of the author only,
but also a manifestation of the creativity of the author in digging and
cultivating the ideas the mind.
Every human being needs beauty in life. Anyone can create something
which can reckon beautiful. Beside that the people like to communicate each
other that formerly use body language and gesture as the original ways of
communication. Another way human being use is oral communication and the
next develop into written one. By written language, people can communicate
with others although they do not meet directly. People create an artistic way
in writing to express a thing called literature. Literature is very interesting to
study.
According to Nurgiantoro, language is means of literary expression. It
is similar with paint in painting (2010: 272), in the words, it can be defined
that language is really important aspect in literary work. Literary work has
different language with non literary work. Language of literary work has
aesthetic element because literature is built by words. Which come from soul

2
expression and mind of the author. The reader will be interested when reading
the literary work because story that provided by author told with beautiful
language. But an author has different style with other authors in using
language at their literary work. Language style is one of the components of
intrinsic element in drama. Every language style is influenced by the author.
So, special character of the authors and it can be seen from the style in using
language, in this case is figurative language or figurative speech.
According to Wiranto, figurative is a literary device that used
commonly in literature. Figurative language makes the story more real
because in a figurative language an expression may be used to refers to an
idea or an object that doesn‟t normally belong to the primary meaning domain
of the object that the figures is used to refer to (2007:82). In the word, in
figurative language an idea or object can be substituted by certain expression
and it can be related or not.
From the opinion above, it can be concluded that figurative language
is a style of language that aims to describe or tell something by using
uncommon sentences, which is contain meaning that need to be interpreted.
The figurative language is the aesthetic aspect in the literary work, the readers
will be interested to read literary work.
Drama is stories of human beings in conflict, performed through
action for an audience, either live, over the radio, or on screen. (Letwin, at al,
2008: xii).

3
Based on the explanation above, the writer decides to choose the
research entitled “An analysis of figurative language in a drama the proposal
by Anton Chekov”
B. Problem Identification
According to the background of study above, the writer found
problems generally related to the object, and they are:
1. What is drama?
2. What is figurative language?
3. What types of figurative language are found in a drama of the proposal by
Anton Cekhov?
4. Which type of figurative language is dominantly used in a drama the
proposal by Anton Cekhov?
C. Problem Limitation
Drama covers a large scope of some elements such as conflict,
theme, plot, character, characterization, setting and situation, style and
language. So, it is important to limit the scope of the certain item because it is
too large to discuss. The scope of the study is literature; the writer wants to
limit the study on figurative language in drama text “The Proposal” by Anton
Chekov.

4
D. Problem Formulation
Based on the background of study, problem identification and problem
limitation above, the writer formulates the problem as follow:
1. What types of figurative language are found in a drama of the proposal
by Anton Chekov?
2. Which type of figurative language is dominantly used in a drama the
proposal by Anton Chekov?
E. Research objective
According to the statement above, the purpose of the study the
researcher formulates are as follows:
1. To describe what type of figurative language are found in a drama
the proposal by Anton Chekov?
2. To describe what type of figurative language is dominantly used in
a drama the proposal by Anton Chekov?
F. The Significance of the Research
After analyzing the story, the researcher gets knowledge and
understanding about figurative language is used in the story. From this case,
she hopes that the result of the study will help the students or readers to get
knowledge about literary works, and it can help the students who analyze
the study on the drama or novel. There are several significances that can be
taken from this research as follows:
1. This research is expected to be useful for the lecturer and the student
of STKIP PGRI Ponorogo, moreover for English department. It gives

5
contribution in literary analysis especially, how to analyze the
figurative language
2. This research is expected to give readers a reference of linguistics
study concerned figurative language weather English or Bahasa
Indonesia
3. This research hopefully will add researcher‟s knowledge in linguistic
study.
G. Definition of Key Term
In order to help the readers understanding what is being discussed in
this script, there are some definitions of some terms:
1. Drama
Stories of human beings in conflict, performed through action for
audiences
2. Figurative of Language
Abrams (1999:96) affirm that figurative language is a conspicuous
departure from what users of a language apprehend as a standard meaning
of words or the standard order of word, in order to achieve some special
meaning or effect.
3. The proposal
The proposal is the title of drama text written by Anton Cekhov

6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND FRAME OF THOUGHT
A. Review Of Literature
In this section, the writer would like to show the literatures related to
research problem. There are some theories related that will be reviewed, they
are:
1. Drama
a. Definition of Drama
Drama is a scope quite similar to that of purpose fiction, with
the difference that it is for acting (Little, 1966:68). Drama is
storytelling and in fiction dramatic elements are necessary to move the
reader sentence by sentence, and idea by idea. And drama provides
the tension. Conflict is established and the reader, especially if they
sympathize (not necessarily like) with the character, becomes tense
about what will happen. Tension that is created by withholding
information is not as effective and is not often useful in fiction. When
the author and the narrator know who killed the parson, tension is in
the discovery, and the process of discovery, of the murderer. It‟s
mechanical and may often seem contrived. In literary fiction,
contrivance is not effective. Characters and their decisions and foibles
drive the plot. All plot information essential to the story is delivered
when needed (not withheld for tension). Now the reader becomes
involved in what will happen to a character they care about. And they

7
will discover tension in a series of logically structured and logically
interrelated scenes filled with conflict in the language, in the syntax,
among the characters, and in plotting.
Drama is a story which is performed and acted in for an
audience. According to Letwin at all “Drama is stories of human
beings in conflict, performed through action for an audience, either
live, over the radio, or on screen” (2008: xii).
b. Elements of Drama
We cannot enjoy drama as well before knowing the architecture
of drama. Letwin at all (2008: xiii) definite the architecture of drama
can be expressed by and examined through five discrete component
parts: plot, character, theme, genre, and style. And the explanation as
below:
1) Plot
According to Letwin at all “by plot, we mean the seven structural
components used in the selection and arrangement of events in the
story (2008: xvi)”. And the architectural components of each of
these dramas are completely different. Yet they arranged around
the same seven structural parts of plot that are found in many
dramas the word over and Letwin at all (2008: 1-2) divided into
these parts:
a) Leading character – the central person in the plot

8
b) The inciting incident – the event that throws the leading
character out of balance
c) Objective – the goal the leading character seeks to restore the
balance of her life
d) Obstacle – that force, or forces, prevent the leading character
from reaching her goal.
e) The crisis- the toughest- and usually final – decision made by
the leading character to overcome the obstacle.
f) The climax – the final showdown with the obstacle that arise out
of the crisis, during which the leading character either gains or
fails to gain her objective
g) The resolution – the new balance that is created as a result of the
climax
2) Character
Letwin at all (2008; xiii) said that:
Character not only means the individual who are in the drama but
but it also, and more importantly, refers to the true essence of those
individuals – their character – which can only be revealed through
the action they take over the course of the story.
3) Theme
Theme is the point of view of artist on the subject matter.
According to Letwin at all:
Theme in this context does not mean the subject matter of the
story. Theme is the artist‟s point of view on the subject matter,
if plot answer the question “what‟s happening?” theme answer
the question what‟s does it mean? (2008: xvii)

9
4) Genre
Genre in the drama means the type of drama being presented.
According to Letwin at all (2008: xiii) “by genre, we mean the type
of drama being presented, these types being differentiated primarily
by the response the elicit in the people watching”. Dramatic
literature can be divided and categorized into distinct genres.
Letwin at all said that “in poetic, Aristotle separated drama into two
fundamental genres: tragedy and comedy (2008: 93)
5) Style
Every performed drama has style, and characteristic that is manifest
in the author‟s writing how the story performed. Letwin said that
“Finally, every drama has a style, distinctive or characteristic mode
of expression that is manifest in the author‟s as well as the way
story is performed (2008: xvii)”
c. Kinds of Drama
Wiyanto said, there are, there are three base of kinds of
drama; based on presentation of act, appliance, and script
a. Presentation of act
Based on presentation of act, drama can be differentiated into
seven, there are:
a) Tragedy
Tragedy is a play with a sorrowful ending, usually at least one
death, the action and thought and treated seriously and with

10
respect for human personality. The central character is a person
of admirable character and important position who is ruined by
someone.
b) Comedy
The essential function comedy is to amuse. The amusement may
range from quiet smile to guffaw. It can be very sophisticated or
simple. It can be worm, hearted and human.
c) Tragedy- comedy
Tragedy-comedy is a mixture of tragedy and comedy. Its act
content is full of sorrow, but also contains things which are
something with excitement.
d) Melodrama
It may have a sad or happy ending. It distinguished from true
tragedy by a portrayal of characters that are all more violently
and improbably good or evil than is realistic, by lack of real
psychological insight, by a more far- fetched plot whose horrors
and sensations may easily tumble ever into the ludicrous, and by
a continual pandering to the public desire for strong sensations
and great excitement. Melodrama may also fall into
sentimentally when an attempt is made to portray a tender of
lofty emotion. A melodrama has the following markings:
(a) Present a serious object
(b) Opportunity element

11
(c) Emotion or feel pity is true generated. Even so there
hence pittance feels generated fear.
e) Farce
It aims at producing laughter by exaggerated effects of
various kinds and without psychological depth
characterization and with less importance than a rapid
succession of amusing situations.
f) Opera
Opera is dialogue drama of be singing accompanied with
music.
g) Sendratari
Sendratari is alliance between art dance and histrionics
B. Based on medium
Beside on appliance or medium used to be submitted to audience
drama learn differentiated into six, they are:
1. Stage drama
Stage drama is played by show stage actors. Audience resides
in around stage and can enjoy directly by seeing and listening
to the dialogue.
2. Radio drama
Radio drama cannot be seen, but only can be listened by
audience. Radio drama can be broadcasted directly.
3. Television drama

12
4. Television drama can be listened and seen (even only
picture). Television drama can be displayed is direct, earn
also recorded first then displayed any time as recording to
summit subject program of television.
5. Film drama
Film drama use wide screen/ sail and usually addressed by
cinema. But also can displayed in television.
6. Puppet drama
Puppet drama can be listened and seen. The actor depicted
with wayang (puppet of java) or golek (sundainis) and played
by mastermind (dalang).
7. Doll drama
Doll drama is doll all personality depicted with doll played
by some peoples.
C. Based on script
Based on script which is of used, drama can differentiated into
two they are:
1. Traditional drama
Traditional drama is does not use script, if there is script, it
is only in the form of story framework and some notes
related to prayers of drama. Character of personality,
dialogue, and its motions are delivered fully to players.
2. Modern drama

13
Modern drama is drama use script. The script of dialogue
contain and deed all that player really is applied. Its
meaning, player learns by heart to be dialogue and also
playing the part of him to with soul.
2. Figurative language
a. The Essence of Stylistic
Language and literary already has style. Aminuddin also
explained in terms of literary the word “style‟ has meaning as a media
for the author to conveys ideas by using beautiful language and
harmonious and able to give a sense of meaning and atmosphere that
can touch the reader intellectually (2009: 72).
Style is everything that deviates from normal use. Deviations are
aiming for aesthetics have appeared in literature, because literature is
closed to aesthetics elements. Style of language in literature is different
from everyday people talking. Therefore, language style of literature is
interesting to be researched, especially from the stylistic aspect.
According to Endraswara, stylistics etymologically related to be
the word style while the stylistics can be translated as the science of
style. Stylistics is the science of the use of language in literature (2003:
72). Abraham as quoted by Nurgiantoro stated that stile or style is the
pronunciation of the language in literary work, or how an author
reveals something that will be presented.

14
Pradobo said, stylistic is the study of language style. He also
added that stylistic is the science of linguistics that focuses on
variations in language use, often giving special attention to the most
basic use of language and complex in the literature. Thus, stylistic uses
linguistics aspects to assess literary work (2005: 2)
Stylistic analysis used to find common aesthetics goal appears in
a literary work of the whole element. Thus, the stylistic analysis can be
directed to discuss the contents. Stylistic research based on the
assumption that literature has a great task (Endraswara, 2008: 72).
From the definition above, it can be concluded that stylistic is a
science that assesses the use of language in the form of literature that
covers the entire empowerment potential of language. In other word, it
can be defined as science of language style. The authors in literary
discourse will be dominant in using language that implies reflective
and connotative meaning.
In addition, the arrangements of the sentences also indicate that
variations and harmony to give a sense of aesthetics and not just
certain shades of meaning. That is the issue of literary style in the end
also closely related to the problem of style in the language itself.
b. Definition of Figurative Language
Abrams (1999:96) affirm that figurative language is a
conspicuous departure from what users of a language apprehend as a

15
standard meaning of words or the standard order of word, in order to
achieve some special meaning or effect.
Figurative language is another way of describing what more are
commonly called "figures of speech." Robert Eaglestone in "Doing
English" defines a figure of speech as "the use of words or a phrase in
a way that isn't strictly true; the words have been 'turned away' from
their literal sense and don't mean what a dictionary might say they
mean." There are many different kinds of figures of speech, but they
all share the same element in that they are not rooted in the factual.
Recognizing this type of language is very easy with a little bit of
practice.
According to Bradshaw, figurative language or figurative
speech is combinations of words whose meaning cannot be determined
by examination of the meanings of the word that make it up. Or, to put
it on another way, a figurative language uses a number of words to
represent a single object, person or concept (2002: 2)
According to Wren and Martin as quoted by Siswantoro,
figurative language is a departure from the ordinary form of expression
or the ordinary course of ideas in order to produce greater effect (2005:
24).
Language style in a literary work is different from language
style in daily conversation. Literary work uses many figurative
languages. Language style in literary work is a special variety that is

16
used by the authors to embellish the text. Style of language, in this case
is figurative language is in art that is influenced by conscience.
Through the figurative language, the authors reveal their ideas.
However the feeling of the authors when writing but the authors using
interesting language style, the literary work will be more beautiful.
Thus, it can be said that figurative language is the wrapper idea that
will be smooth the literary text. Literature also has special language
gives a big art contribution in literature aesthetics (Endraswara, 2008:
73).
H.B Jassin stated that style of language is a matter of choosing
and using words accordance with the contents of which would be
submitted. Style of language is also a matter of how to construct
sentences effectively, aesthetically, and can give a concrete picture in
the reader‟s mind (Djuanda and Prana, 2006: 180). Toner and
Elizabeth stated that when a writer uses particular device, or trick, with
language in order to make it more interesting, we call that a figurative
speech (2003:12)
Disclosure language in the literary reflects the author‟s
attitudes, characters and feeling that can be used to influence the
attitudes and feelings of the readers. Therefore, the form of disclosure
language must be effective and be able to support the idea exactly that
has aesthetics aspect as a masterpiece.

17
Language has the impression of aesthetics and carry the
meaning simultaneously. Without any aesthetics of language, literature
becomes bland. So, the author‟s flexibility of working out the language
will create a unique aesthetics of literary work. In other words,
language is a special vehicle for literary expression.
According to Endraswara, literary language is the special
language, it is because the language has been engineered and smeared
in such a way. It later emerged from the polished style appear nice
language style. Thus the use of language style should be fully based on
the authors. Not just a coincidence that the style was created by the
author for the privilege of his work. So it can be said if the author is
smart in cultivating language, rich and proficient in using stylistics the
literary work will be more dazzling and more weight (2008: 72).
Based on some opinion above, it can be concluded that
definition of figurative language or figurative speech is a typical way
of expressing thought and feelings in written form or orally. Stylistic
peculiarities of this, lies in selecting words that are not directly declare
its true meaning. Selecting effective and aesthetics words is a key
element in a style of language. And in is greatly influenced by the
author. So that the style of language in literary work will be different
with the style of language in other literary works because each author
has their own style of language in creating aesthetics art of language in
their literary work.

18
c. Types of Figurative Language
According to Brown Amanda, In written and spoken language
there are certain effective ways of saying things without saying them
directly. That‟s called figures of speech or figurative language, they
are used to emphasize, clarify, and embellish what is being said. Most
figures of speech simply take what is well known and use it to depict
what is less familiar (2006: 1).
Figurative language created by authors to provide aesthetics
element in the stories. The authors also express their thoughts, feeling,
and ideas use figurative language in order to make the reader may be
interested.
Keraf was quoted by Nurgiantoro distinguish the style of
language according to whether meaning directly into two groups,
namely the rhetorical and figurative. Rhetorical style is a style of
language whose meaning must be interpreted according to the value of
original form. Language which used is a language that contains
continuity element of meaning. While figurative language is a
language style whose meanings of words that make it up (2010: 298)
Ibid stated that disclosure form that use figurative language are
more used, but perhaps only a few that their appearing in a literary
work is relatively high. Selecting and using of figurative form could
have been in touch with the tastes, habits, needs, and creativity of the
author. Form of figurative language are often used by author is a form

19
of comparison and equality, that is comparing something to something
else through the characteristics of the similarities of both, for example
in the form of physical characteristics, personality traits, attitudes,
circumstance, mood, behavior, and so forth. Form of comparison is
seen from comparison the nature of continuity equation can be
differentiated into the form of simile, metaphor and personification.
Moellono as quoted by Zaimar, has been given classification of
figurative language or figurative speech as follows: Comparative
figure of speech, Opposition figure of Speech, and Linkage figure of
speech.
While Bardshaw distinguishes the figurative language as
follows: Figures of Comparison (Simile, Metaphor), Figure of
Overstatement (Hyperbole, Hendiadys), Figures of Understatement
(Irony, Litotes or Meiosis, Euphemism, Antithesis), Figures involving
Omission (Ellipsis), Figures of Association or Relationship
(Metonymy, Synecdoche), Figures Stressing the Personal Dimension
(Personification, Apostrophe) (2002: 6).
Djuanda and Prana stated that, figurative language can be
distinguished into for kinds; (1) Compare figure speech, (2) Assertion
figure of speech, (3) Understatement figure of speech, and (4)
Opposition figure of speech (2006: 181)
Based on opinions above, it can be concluded that figurative
language is divided into four types, that is (1) Comparison figure of

20
speech. This kind of figurative means a figure of figurative language
that is trying to create a way to compare the expression of a thing or
situation with the other terms or condition (Siswantoro: 29). (2)
Assertion figure of speech. Assertion figure of speech is the figure of
speech that is trying to suppress the sense of a word or phrase. This
assertion figure of speech can be done by repeating a word over and
over again, repeating it in other word that have the same meaning, and
so on (Djuanda and Prana, 2006: 187). (3) Understatement figure of
speech. This is kinds of figure of speech used to understate as an
expression of feeling happy or angry. (4) Opposite figure of speech.
This kinds of figure of speech is the figure of speech that is expressed
by opposing something or situation. This opposition is intended to
reinforce the meaning or intent emphasized (ibid: 192)
Each type of figure of speech is divided into some categories as
follows.
1. Comparison Figure of Speech
a. Personification
Personification gives human characteristics to inanimate
objects, animals or ideas. This can really affect the way the reader
imagines things. Personification is a depiction of objects or non-
human (inanimate) whether tangible or abstract which are treated
as if they were human. The treatment is meant to thicken the image
that there is a particular quality or attribute (Siswantoro, 2010: 72).

21
According to Toner and Elizabeth that in personification a thing or
object which is not human is given a human characteristic because
of some similarity between the thing and a person. It is easy to
remember because personification contains the word “person”
inside it (2003:13).
From the opinions above I can be concluded that the
personification is a style of language that treats inanimate objects
as if alive, or having the nature of humanity. Example: The arrow
went looking for prey; every night, the moon comes by just to say
goodnight to me.
b. Metaphor
According to Wren and Martin Metaphor is an implied
simile. It does not like simile, state one thing is like another or acts
as another, but takes that for granted and proceeds as if the two
things were one (1981:489).
A metaphor is a figure of speech that is used to indicate
resemblance. William Shakespeare was a master of the use of
metaphor to convey a meaning far beyond the literal interpretation
of the words themselves. When, in the play „As You Like It‟. He
writes: All the world‟s a stage. And all the men and women merely
players: They have their exits and their entrance; and one man in
his time plays many parts, he is using a metaphor to construct a
word picture about the meaning of life. Taking the language of the

22
theater, which he knew well, Shakespeare here saying that the
world resembles a stage on which people are only role players.
Brown stated that metaphor is such a common useful type
of figure speech that it often escapes notice. Such term as „the eye
of the storm,‟ „the hand of God,‟ and „the mouth of the river‟ are
metaphors, but have become so common that for all but specialists
they have replaced other words for these things (2006: 3).
It can be concluded that metaphors is a figure of speech that
comparing something or situation with something or situation else
directly that may have same character, situation or attitude and
comparing objects that have points in common but without the use
of certain words such as; like or as. Example: she‟s like a love sick
cat
c. Association
Juanda and Prana said, association is figure of speech that
compares an object that has been mentioned, giving rice to an
association or a comparable response to the object, usually
expressed with conjunction like, etc (2006: 182). Example: his face
was white like a late moon.
d. Metonymy
Metonymy is a figure of speech that shows a close affinity
(Nurgiantoro, 2010: 300). According Djuanda and Prana,
metonymy is a figure of speech that equates a word or name that

23
has a relationship with another object which is the company‟s
brand or trade, or stating something to direct its name (2006;
1883). For example: “Panther is more expensive than Kijang”.
The sentence is considered as a metonymy because there are two
words: “Panther” and “Kijang” which are brand name Pnther, is
more expensive than the car with brand name Kijang.
e. Symbolic
Perrine as quoted by Siswantoro expressed with sentence a
symbol may be as something that means more than what it is. In
other words, symbol is a figure of speech that equates a word or a
name of something with word or name of something else (2005:
43). Example: People fight the mayor chair. (Empty chair here
means the position as a mayor).
f. Tropen
Djuanda and Prana stated, that tropen is figurative speech
that use appropriate words and have parallel meaning with the
definition intended (2005: 183). Example: he‟s come to borrow
money! Shan‟t give him any
g. Litotes
Litotes is a figure of speech that uses the words in the
opposite sense or to reduce reality to humble their selves for
making polite (Ibid: 184). According to Bardshaw, litotes is a
figure of speech that understates or lessens one thing in order to

24
magnify another (2002: 7). Example: please, come to our hut; Now
that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am
nothing but dust and ashes.
h. Euphemism
Djuanda and Prana stated that, euphemism is a figure of
speech that uses other words in order to make more polite, and in
order not to hurt people (2006: 184). Example: will go to your
father in peace and be buried as a good old age
i. Hyperbola
Hyperbole derived from the Greek. It is from two words,
they are hyper which mean over and baleen which mean throw. So
hyperbole can be defined as a figurative expression, which
exaggerates the number, size or quality of something in order to
emphasize certain point in a statement. When using hyperbole, a
writer draws attention to a particular idea by saying something
which cannot possibly true.
An exaggeration that is so dramatic that no one would
believe the statement is true. Tall tales are hyperboles. According
to Wren and Martin as quoted by Siswantoro stated that, in
hyperbole a statement is made emphatic by overstatement
(2005:43). It can be concluded that hyperbole is figure of speech
that states something or situation excessively by using words

25
contain greater meaning from the real taste or meaning. Example:
Shut up! My heart’s bursting.
j. Synecdoche
Bradshaw stated that, synecdoche is a part that used to
designate the whole. This is figure of speech where a part of a
particular object is employed throw light on the whole thing (2002:
8). Example: he has many mouth to feed; a hundred wings flashed
by.
k. Allusion
Keraf argue that the allusion is a reference to suggest
similarities between people, places, or even (2004:141). So it can
be concluded that the allusion is a figure of speech that points to
something indirectly similarities between people, events or places,
for example: provide the goods or such advice to him, you like to
give flowers to a monkey.
l. Onomatopoeia
Gibson stated that is onomatopoeia is the use of words
whose sound mimics what they describe (1998:77). Example:
thanks god, The Killer didn’t come this morning.
m. Allegory
Djuanda and Prana argue that, this figure of speech used in
a series of narrative as a whole. It is mean that almost all sentences
in the speech was put on the comparison as a whole and unified.

26
Some comparisons are linked to one another to form a unified
whole. For example: a husband and wife are like the master and
helmsman (2006: 186). Example: the red rooster has been gone,
just smoke sweeping debris.
n. Periphrasis
According to Tarigan periphrasis is kinds of figure of
speech that use words more than needed. Basically, the words can
be replaced just by one word (1985:31). Example: I looked at the
little cotton fluffs that were building up along the sidewalk and
swirling erratically past my face (snow).
2. Assertion Figure of Speech
a. Pleonasm
Pleonasm is a figure of speech that describes a world that
actually does not need to be explained anymore because obviously
understanding. This explanation is used to reinforce meaning.
Example: Himalayan people are always covered with white snow.
b. Parallelism
Ibid argue that parallelism is a figure of speech that states
something to repeat word or group of words in front or behind.
Repeating in front of the sentence is called anaphora, repeating
behind the sentence is called epiphora.
Parallelism or Correspondence consists of the repetitions of
sentence or sentences in similar or contrastive term and it in the

27
same order (Bullinger, 1968: 9). Example: We must not be
complacent, we must no lose. We must keep the spirit.
c. Repetition
According to Djuanda and Prana repetition is a figure of
speech that repeating the words several time in different sentences.
Unusually in prose it is assert meaning or figure of speech which
asserts something by repeating that is considered as important part,
giving rise to a sense of encouragement (2006: 187). In repetition,
the whole word (or some other form) is repeated. This repetition
can be a single word; can be single phrase, a clause, even one
sentence. This same word has same meaning and source. This
means that the whole meaning of the components between the first
and the repetition are same. Sometimes this repetition shows
quantity, sometimes it is the affirmation of the idea (intensity), or
perhaps also for the sake of aesthetics. (Zaimar: 3). Example: not
wealth, not power, not beauty, but mind and language that
attracted the attention.
d. Tautology
Djuanda and Prana argue that tautology is a figure of
speech that repeats a word or group of words several times in a
sentence. It can also use some synonymous words in a row at a
sentence. This figure of speech also stated something by the
synonyms in the other part. This figure of speech has a meaning to

28
repeat the same explanation in other words than the explanation
before (2006: 188). Example: I was told to be patient, be patient
and continue to be patient.
e. Climax
Nurgiantoro stated that, climax is figure of speech that
intended to express and emphasize the idea by displaying
sequentially. The delivery sequence shows the increasing the
importance levels of the idea (2010: 303). Example: his body was
paralyze, weak, miserable life.
f. Anti- climax
According to Djuanda and Prana that Anti- climax is the
opposite of climax. It is states a few things in a row, means more
weakened. Or mention in a row from a common word to a
particular sense (2006: 189). Example: let stand, sit, I cannot even
move.
g. Asyndeton
Asyndeton is a figure of speech that forms of repetition is a
kind of punctuation “comma”. The ideas that are flanked by
commas are the equal ideas, so that have the same emphasis.
Example: cloth, shoes, rugs, glassware are all available in the
store.
h. Polisyndenton

29
According to Nurgiantoro, it is a kind of figure a speech
that repetition using punctuation “and” (2010: 303). Example: He
went after eating and dressing and smoked a cigarette.
i. Enumeration
Enumeration is a figure of speech that used to name a few
events that make up the hint, described part by part s clear. In other
words a sentence that mentions some kinds of the things by each
statement mentioned one by one. Example: I have got three fishes,
a big crap, a catfish, and a wader fish.
j. Interruption
Djuanda and Prana state, it is assertion figure of speech that
use of words or part of insertion sentences between the main
sentences between the main sentences between the main sentence,
for explaining things in that sentence. In other words it explains
something by slipping description between subject matter with the
explanatory (2006: 190). Example: he- the husband she loved –had
died in battle.
k. Rhetoric
According to Nurgiantoro, rhetoric is a figure of speech that
used by the orator. It emphasizes disclosure by displaying a kind of
question that does not require an answer. Because there is only one
possible answer and the reader or listener already knows the
answer (2010: 303). Example: how could the dead back to life?

30
l. Correction
It is a figure of speech that is a correction to what was said
before was wrong, either intentionally or unintentionally, with a
view to provide the rigor of the actual situation. Example: he’s my
friend, no, he’s my boyfriend.
m. Exclamation
It is a figure of speech that used the exclamation words for
getting explicit intention. Example: hello, how are you? What a
beautiful this scenery!
n. Ellipsis
Bradshaw stated that a grammatically it is incomplete
expression that requires the reader to add concepts in order to
finish the thought (2002: 5). Juanda and Prana also argue that, this
figure of figure speech eliminates an element or several elements
of a sentence, may be subject, predicate, or adverb so this figure of
speech uses form of ellipse sentence in order to emphasize falls on
the rest of the words mentioned (2006: 191). Example: no right,
indeed no right.
3. Understatement Figure of Speech
a. Irony
In the irony, the words that are used are the opposite in the
fact. Such as big is said little, which is bad said good. Example:
you are home so soon, it is still at 02.00 a.m.

31
b. Sinism
This figure of is almost similar with irony, but the words
used sound rougher. Example: by seeing your face my stomach be
queasy.
c. Sarcasm
This figure of speech is the roughest understatement. The
words used sometimes sound impolite and bad. Example: damn it!
Brave of your challenge me.
d. Satire
Keraf as quoted by Tarigan stated that satire is a statement
that laughing or refusing something. This form is not always ironic.
Satire has critic about the weakness of human. The main purpose is
for revising ethically (1985: 70). Example: if you want me to hack
file miles through the jungle before sundown, you’d better start
leading the way.
4. Opposition Figure of Speech
a. Paradox
Nugiantoro stated that paradox emphasis to the narrative
that deliberately displays the element of conflict in it (2010: 300).
Zaimar stated that that paradox is the opinion or argument that
contrary to popular opinion, it can be considered strange or
extraordinary. It also said the paradox a wrong proportion that one
but it also is true. Often behind the surprising paradox, paradox

32
hides the truth that can be maintained. In this figure of speech,
there are two markers that have opposing meanings. Both markers
appear, so do not be implicit. However, there was opposition
within the meaning of the word only, whereas in the paradox that
live is not often the opposition but rather to strengthen the
meaning.
The conclusion, paradox is a figure of speech that looks as
if there is any conflict. But it is not because the object is expressed
differently. Example: I have him, but I miss him; he felt lonely in
the middle of the crowd.
b. Contradiction
According to Djuanda and Prana, it is figure of speech that
containing contrary expressions to what was mentioned before.
What has been denied will be said at the next word (2006:193).
Example: all of the students are present, Antonio.
c. Antithesis
A figurative speech where two very opposing lines of
thought or ideas are placed in a somewhat balanced sentenced.
According to Siswantoro, it is contained in this figure of
speech is the charge of opposition, the difference between one to
another idea is revealed, or packaged in a single sentence (2005:
36). Example: young and old, big-little, male-female gathered in
this field.

33
B. Frame of thought
Language is style in literary work, its combinations of words whose
meaning cannot be determined by examination of the meanings of the words
that make it up. The speaker uses figurative language which has the
impression of aesthetics and carry the meaning simultaneously. It also
happens in the proposal drama uttered by the Ivan Vassilevitch Lomov,
Natalya and Chubukov. In the conversation is found many kinds of figurative
language such as association, repetition and also hyperbole that used much
more then both of them to make Natalya accept his proposal of marriage.

34
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research of Method
This research is descriptive study, Nawawi (1995: 63) stated as
follow:
Metode deskriptif dapat diartikan sebagai prosedur
pemecahan masalah yang diselidiki dengan
menggambarkan atau melukiskan keadaan subjek atau
objek penelitian (novel, drama, cerita pendek, puisi) pada
saat sekarang berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang tampak atau
sebagaimana adanya.
In this research, the use of qualitatitive method as problem solving
that use to to explain and describe the result of the research such as (novel,
drama, short story,poetry) based on the real fact. By this method, it can be
analyze the data deeply and briefly.
In this study, the researcher applies qualitative research method. The
data is taken in written form and conversation uttered in proposal drama.
The source of data is from the text of the proposal drama. The supporting
data is theories related to the research. In method of collecting data, the
researcher uses “attention without mixing up the conversation technique and
noting technique ”. Those techniques are supported by Mahsun in
(Muhammad, 2011; 194)
In the attention without mixing up the conversation
technique, the researcher only as a observer of the use of
informer. The researcher does not involve with the use of
informer language that the researcher research. So, the
researcher only mixes the dialogue up that happens
between informers.

35
In this research, the researcher tries to find figurative language in the
proposal drama related to the conversational. They are comparative,
assertion, understatement and opposition. The forth kinds of figurative
language also has types each of them. The purpose of this research will be
focused on the analysis of types of figurative the proposal drama. In this
case, the writer tries to indicate the types that used by each speaker. During
the drama, the actors use oh that type, so the conversation can categorize
based of types above.
B. Object of Research
The object of this research is dialogs that used in the proposal drama
written by Anton Chekov.
C. Data Resources.
Data source is divided into primary and secondary source.
1. Primary Source
The main data sources are taken from the script of drama the
proposal by Anton Chekov.
2. Secondary Source
It is a data source, which is used to support and complete the
primary data. The data is taken from any kinds of books and relevant
materials such as books, essays, articles, magazines, journals and all the
printer matters which related with to the study. Finding the material from
internet is the other data source.

36
D. Technique of Collecting Data
The technique of collecting data in this research is:
1. Observation
The writer observes the drama by reading the script many times in
order to understand the intended meaning in the conversation this
drama.
2. Documentary
In this research, the researcher uses note taking method. The researcher
conducts the documentation from the script of the proposal drama, and
article.
E. Technique of Analyzing the Data
Analyzing of the data is done by description each data according to
functional and relational. This terminology of analysis is called by data
display (Miles and Huberman, 1984: 21).
In this research, the researcher chooses a drama “The Proposal, then
collecting the data which is relevant with the research and makes a note-
taking. All the data are collecting in one element category include;
comparative, assertion, understatement, opposition figure of speech, it will
be analyze in one unit (conceptual clustered display).
After collecting the data, the writer identified and classified data based
on the types of figurative language. Then, the researcher analyzes each data,
synchronizing between the data and the theories which are used in the
research based on the problem of research. In analyzing data, the researcher
conducted data reduction by selecting relevant data with research problem.

37
After reduction, she analyzes the data based on the problem of study then
the data is displayed.
The step to analyze the data the researcher uses interactive technique
that includes reduction of data, showing the data, and making data
conclusion.

38
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL CONSIDERATION
A. Bibliography of the Author
Anton Payloyich Chekov, people often called Anton Chekov was born
on January 29th
1860, in the small seaport of Taganrog. He was the most
famous cherished story tellers. He had produced some hilarious one-acts,
but his tragic story guided him as the major dramatists. Today, he is
remembered as a playwright and one of the masters of the modern story.
Anton Chekov was a grandson of a serf and son of grocer, whose religious
caused his years to succed under its shadow. While he learnt medicine in
University of Moscow, he begun short story. After graduating in 1886, he
gained a famous writer. Chekov „works were published in various St.
Petersburg papers, including Peterbuskaia Gazeta in 1885, and Noyoe
Vremia in 1886.
In the beginning of his career, he mastered the art of one-act and
produced some fine pieces. In 1888, he wrote a story, the bear in which a
creditor persuaded a young widow, but later proposed marriage to her after
being impressed that she was agreed to fight a duel with him. In 1889, he
wrote the wedding, which the story was very nice to read, and it became the
hit among his fans.
In 1886, he began to contribute regulary to St. Petersburg daily Nayoe
Vremia and he developed calm style writing. At that time he was critized by
his opponents because his story lacked social documentary, but at the same

39
time, he was knobbed and praised by author as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai
Leskov.
In 1888, Chekov was rewarded the Pushkin Prize and very next year
he was elected as a member of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.
He leaved literature and turned to science for a while when his play, the
wood demon failed 1889. As a part of doctoral research, he made a trip to
the penal colony of Shakalin, north of Siberia. During the latter half of the
year, he travelled all over the world, including places of South East Asia, the
Indian Subcontinent, and the Middle East.
In 1901, Chekov finally married Olga Knipper, who had performed in
his plays. On july 15, 1904, in Badenweiler, Germany, Chekov died. He was
buried in cemetery of the Noyodeviche Monastry in Moscow.
B. The Author’s Works
There were many literature works of anton Chekov. They are as
below:
1. Collected plays in English translation
1) P'yessa bex nazvaniya (Platonov) (one-act; written c. 1881);
translation by John Cournos published as That Worthless Fellow
Platonov
2) O vrede tabaka: Stsena monolog (written c. 1886-1902), translation
by Milka Petrovich published as On the Harmful Effects of
Tobacco, adaptation by Boris Zupetz, pictures by Patrick Couratin,
Quist, 1977.

40
3) Ivanov: Drama v chetyryokh deystviyakh (four-act), first produced
in Moscow at the Korsh Theater, November 19, 1887; translation
by Marian Fell published as Ivanoff: A Play in Four Acts,
Brentanos, 1923; translation by Ariadne Nicolaeff published as
Ivanov: A Drama in Four Acts, adaptation by John Gielgud,
Theater Arts Books, 1966, first produced on Broadway at the
Shubert Theater, May 3, 1966.
4) Medved': Shutka v odnom deystvii (one-act), first produced in
Moscow at Korsh Theater, October, 1888; translation by Roy
Temple House published as A Bear, Moods Publishing, 1909;
translation by Hilmar Baukhage published as The Boor: A Comedy
in One Act, Samuel French, 1915; translation by Eric Bentley
published as The Brute: A Joke in One Act, Samuel French, 1956;
published as The Bear, adapted by Joellen Bland, Denver Pioneer
Drama Service, 1984.
5) Predlozheniye: Shutka v odnom deystvii (one-act; written c. 1888-
89); translation by Baukhage and Barett H. Clark published asA
Marriage Proposal: Comedy in One Act, Samuel French, 1914;
translation by Sergius Ponomarov published as The Marriage
Proposal: A Joke in One Act, edited by William-Alan Landes,
Players Press (Studio City, CA), 1990.
6) Leshy: Komediya v chetyryokh deystviyakh (four-act), first
produced in Moscow at the Abramov Theater, November, 1889;

41
translation by S. S. Koteliansky published as The Wood Demon: A
Comedy in Four Acts by Anton Tchehov, Macmillan, 1926;
translation by Nicholas Saunders and Frank Dwyer, Smith and
Kraus (Newbury, VT), 1993.
2. Short fiction
1) Contributor, sometimes under the pseudonyms "A Man Without a
Spleen," "Antosha Chekhonte," "My Brother's Brother," or "v," of
more than four hundred short stories, including An Anonymous
Story, Anyuta, Ariadne, At Christmas,At Home, An Awkward
Business, The Beauties,The Beggar, The Butterfly, Concerning
Love,The Daughter of Albion, The Death of a Government
Official,A Dreadful Night, A Dreary Story, Easter Night, The
Encounter, Enemies, Excellent People, Fat and Thin,
Gooseberries,Grisha, Gusev, A Hard Case,Heartache, The
Huntsman, In Exile, In the Cart, In the Ravine, In Trouble, The
Malefactor, A Marriageable Girl, Mire, The Misfortune, Murder,
My Wife, The Name-Day Party, New Villa, On Official
Business,Oysters, Peasant Women, Peasants,Revenge, Romance
With Double Bass, Sergeant Prishibeyev, Sleepy, A Trifle From
Life,The Two Volodyas, Typhus, Vanka,Verochka, A Woman's
Kingdom, The Witch,The Work of Art, to numerous periodicals,
includingBudil'nik, Novoye vreniya, Oskolki, Petershurgskaya

42
gazeta, Russkaya niysl, Russkiye vedeniosti, Severny vestnik,
Strekoza, and Zhurnal dlya vsekh.
2) Chekhov published a number of collections of his works during his
lifetime, including: Shornik dlya detey (title means A Collection of
Children's Stories; 1883); Pestrye rasskazy (title means Motley
Tales; 1886); V sumerkakh (title means In the Twilight;
1887);Nevinnye rechi (title means Innocent Speeches, 1887),
Rasskazy (title means Tales; 1888),Detvora (title means Children;
1889); also a 1890 collection whose title has been translated as
Gloomy People and an 1894 collection whose title has been
translated as Stones and Tales.
3. Collected short fiction in English translation
1) The Black Monk, and Other Stories, translation by R. E. C. Long,
Duckworth, 1903, F. A. Stokes, 1915, reprinted, Books for
Libraries Press, 1970.
2) The Kiss, and Other Stories, translation by Long, Duckworth, 1908,
F. A. Stokes, 1916, reprinted, Books for Libraries Press, 1972.
3) Stories of Russian Life, translation by Marian Fell, Scribner, 1914.
4. The Other Work of the Author:
1) Anton Chekhov's Short Stories: Texts of the Stories, Backgrounds,
Criticism, selected and edited by Ralph E. Matlaw, Norton, 1979.
2) Boys, translation by James Riordan, illustrations by Ruben
Vardzigulyants, Progress, 1979.

43
3) White Star (juvenile), translation by Michelle MacGrath,
illustrations by N. Charushin, Malysh, 1980.
4) Chekhov: The Early Stories, 1883-1888, selected and translated by
Patrick Miles and J. Murtay Pitcher, 1982, Macmillan, 1983.
5) The Kiss, and Other Stories, translation introduction by Ronald
Wilks, Penguin, 1982
6) The Duel, and Other Stories, translation and introduction by Wilks,
Penguin 1984
7) The Russian Master, and Other Stories, translation, introduction,
and notes by Hingley, Oxford University Press, 1984.
8) The Party, and Other Stories, translation and introduction by Wilks,
Penguin 1985.
9) The Fiancee, and Other Stories, translation and introduction by
Wilks, Penguin (Harmondsworth), 1986
10) Ward Number Six, and Other Stories, translation and introduction
by Hingley, Oxford University Press, 1988.
11) A Woman's Kingdom and Other Stories, translation,
introduction, and notes by Hingley, Oxford University Press, 1989.
12) Five Great Short Stories, Dover (New York City), 1990.
C. The Synopsis of The Proposal Drama
The proposal drama was written by Anton Chekov in 1888-1889 and
being performed in 1980. The characters were Stephan Stepanovitch as
father, Natalia Stepanova as Stephan‟s daughter, and Ivan Vassiliytch

44
Lomov as Chubukov‟s neighbor, a large and hearty, but very suspicious
landowner. The farce explored the process of getting marriage and also
could be known as a satire on the upper middle class and in the courtship.
The play point out the struggle to balance the economic necessities of
marriage with actually the characters wanted. In Russia, a marriage is a
mean of economic stability. They got married to gain wealth and possession
and to satisfy social pressure. In this drama showed by sati ring and
emphasizing the couple‟s foolish arguments over small things. The main
arguments in the play were around the oxen meadows and two dogs called
flyer and finder.
Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov was a long-time Stephanovitch Chubukov‟s
neighbor. One day he came to Chubukov home by dressing with colorful
dress, Chubukov asked him why he came wearing colorful dress then he
declared what the reason coming there was to propose Natalia Stephanova
in marriage to propose marriage Natalia Stephanova, 25 year old. After
asking and getting joyful permission he was invited to the room meeting
Natalia Stephanova and conveyed what he wanted to.
Lomov was hypochondriac. While he tried to make clear reason why
he was for being there and he got into big argument with Natalia about the
oxen meadows, a disputed piece of land between their perspective
properties, he got palpitations and numbness in his leg. Hearing their hot
argument, Chubukov joined in and got hottest argument and sent out of his
house. Chubukov was angry looking them in hot argument, while Chubukov

45
ranted Lomov, he expressed his shock about his foolish dare coming there to
propose Natalia marriage. Knowing it, she was shock and started into
hysterics and asked her father to bring him back. He did and brought him
back and they got into second argument about a hunt, Chubukov dogs,
flying and finder. Ivan was collapse over arguing; knowing it Natalia and
Chubukov feared he was died. After a second, he was consciousness
Chubukov asked her to accept his proposal by a kiss, and then she did and
they had champagne in argument.
In this conversation is found the speakers use many kinds of figurative
language, beginning from the dialog when Lomov came in until he wants to
propose the marriage proposal to Natalya and kisses her.

46
CHAPTER V
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher going to analyzed the kinds of figurative
language that found in a drama the proposal by Anton Chekov. As explained in
chapter ii, figurative language uses figures of speech to say something other than
the literal meaning of the word. It is one which literally in compatible term, forces
the readers to attend the connotation rather than to the denotation. The researcher
also follows the step which has been arranged in the methodology chapter iii.
The figurative language that found in a drama the proposal by Anton
Chekov as follow:
Table 5.1
Association a Proposal Drama
No The Example The Meaning
1. Then, why are you in evening
dress, my precious? As if you’re
paying a New Years Eve visit
Chubukhov asked to Lomov why did
he wear evening dress as he as in
New Year eve, but actually he wasn‟t
in New Year Eve
2. She’s like a love sick cat Chubukhov thought that Natalya felt
similar cat which sad because of
love, that not the truth condition
3. I jump like a lunatic Lomov jumped up such as someone
who behaves in a silly or dangerous
way, whereas he was not in that kind

47
of condition
4. Shut up or I’ll shoot you like a
partridge! You fool
Keep silent please or I‟ll shoot you
like a bird with a round body and a
short tail which is sometimes hunted
for food, where actually he was not
similar at all
5. Guess is a dog; as for Squeezer,
well it’s too funny to argue
Guess and Squeezer are as same as
another dog it also about barking and
shouting
The table above describes the result Simile of figurative language that
occurred in the dialogue of Proposal Drama
1. Then, why are you in evening dress, my precious? As if you’re paying a
New Years Eve visit
The meaning: Chubukhov was shock knowing Lomov wearing evening
dress as he as in New Year eve then he asked what wrong with him, but
actually he wasn‟t in New Year Eve
2. She’s like a love sick cat
The meaning: Chubukhov though that Natalya felt similar cat which sad
because of love and he convince Lomov that she won‟t consent but all of
that was not the truth condition
3. I jump like a lunatic

48
The meaning: Lomov felt such as someone who behaves in a silly or
dangerous way to give himself time to think and to hesitate, looking for
real love, where actually he was not in that kind of condition.
4. Shut up or I’ll shoot you like a partridge! You fool
The meaning: Chubokhov ask to Lomov to keep silent, otherwise he‟ll
shoot him like a bird with a round body and a short tail which is
sometimes hunted for food.
5. Guess is a dog; as for Squeezer, well it’s too funny to argue
The meaning: Lomov said that Guess and Squeezer are as same as
another dog but he still argue that Squeezer was the best dog
Table 5.2
Symbolic in a Proposal Drama
1. I’ve come to ask the hand of your
daughter, Natalya Stepanovna, in
marriage
Lomov come to Cubukhov‟s house
to ask the consent about marriage
proposal
2. I can’t make head or tail of all
this about aunts and grandfathers
and grandmothers!
Natalya can‟t decide anything
whether where is the truth
The table above describes the result Symbolic of figurative language that
occurred in the dialogue of Proposal Drama

49
1. I’ve come to ask the hand of your daughter, Natalya Stepanovna, in
marriage
The meaning: He tried to convey his reason coming there was proposed
Natalya in marriage, Chubukhov was glad and as soon as he called
Natalya to meet Lomov immediately.
2. I can’t make head or tail of all this about aunts and grandfathers and
grandmothers!
The meaning: Lomov explained that the peasants used to bake bricks for
his aunt‟s grandmother, but Natalya can‟t differentiate whether the truth,
she only knows that meadows are hers or his.
Table 5.3
Euphemism in a Proposal Drama
1. No, I’ve come only to see you,
honoured Stepan Stepanovitch
Lomov comes around just to see the
Chubukhov, without giving the real
information
2 Hear me out, Implore you! Lomov asked Natalya to listen
carefully and not to do something in
a very sincere, emotional and
determined way
. 3. You see, honour Stepanitch… I
beg pardon
Lomov conveyed his real reason
coming was to propose Natalya in
marriage

50
4. Excuse me, I cannot continue this
discussion, my heart is palpitating
By permition, Lomov wanted to
finish the debate by force because it
made Lomov was angry
The table above describes the result Euphemism of figurative language that
occurred in the dialogue of Proposal Drama they are:
1. No, I’ve come only to see you, honoured Stepan Stepanovitch
The meaning: Lomov comes around just to see the Chubukhov, without
giving the real information about his coming it makes Lomov anxious.
2. Hear me out, Implore you!
The meaning: Lomov asked Natalaya to listen him out, what he said and
not do way emotionally because the contribution was as what he believe
in true
3. You see, honour Stepanitch… I beg pardon
The meaning: Lomov conveyed his real reason coming to Chubukhov it
was to propose Natalya in marriage
4. Excuse me, I cannot continue this discussion, my heart is palpitating
The meaning: Lomov insisted to finish the debate because it made him
was angry and he consider that Natalya mocked him because his heart is
palpitating

51
Table 5.4
Tropen in a Proposal Drama
1. He is come to borrow money!
Shan’t give him any!
Chubokhov told Natalya that Lomov
come to borrow money and he won‟t
lend him, however actually he came
to propose Natalya in marriage
2. Young man, am twice your age,
and ask you to speak to me
without agitating yourself, and all
that.
Chubokhov argues Lomov that his
age twice old and he have to consider
that he is a young man, have to
honour and been polite person
especially with the elder
3. But here I must ask you to restrain
yourself!
Chubukhov has to keep his anger by
himself
4. If I give myself time to think, to
hesitate, to talk a lot, to look for
an ideal
Lomov thinks that he must open his
mind and thinks once more about
getting an ideal wife
The table above describes the result Tropen of figurative language that
occurred in the dialogue of Proposal Drama, they are:
1. He is come to borrow money! Shan’t give him any!

52
The meaning: Chubokhov told Natalya that Lomov come to borrow money
and he won‟t lend him, however actually he came to propose Natalya in
marriage but Lomov was ignore that reason before.
2. Young man, am twice your age, and ask you to speak to me without
agitating yourself, and all that.
The meaning: Chubokhov argues Lomov that his age twice old and he
have to consider that he is a young man, have to honour and been polite
person especially with the elder and not to as what as he wanted to say
such above.
3. But here I must ask you to restrain yourself!
The meaning: Cubukhov has to keep his anger by himself in order to
make better condition
4. If I give myself time to think, to hesitate, to talk a lot, to look for an ideal
The meaning: Lomov thought that he must open his mind and thinks once
more about getting an ideal wife, otherwise he‟ll fail anymore and never
get married.
Table 5.5
Hyperbole in a Proposal Drama
1. we just get along somehow, my
angel, to your prayer,
Chubukhov talked to Lomov by
calling my angel, whereas he was
only the ordinary neighbor
2. My dear fellow, where are you so Chubukhov asked to Lomov about

53
formal in your get up? Evening
dress, gloves, and so on
formal dress by dear fellow as far as
he was the honour person in that
condition
3. Can you be going anywhere, my
treasure?
Chubukhov asks to Lomov it just
make the greater meaning that
Lomov as his treasure and prosperity
for him
4. Then why are you in evening
dress, my precious? As if you’re
in a New Year’s Eve visit!
Chubukhov asked to about his
evening dress by exaggerate calling
that he was the important one
5. I’m dying! Fetch him! Natalya asked his father to pick
Lomov back
6. I’ll cut my throat! I will, indeed!
We curse him, abused him drove
him out, and it’s all you … you
Chubukhov was angry because he
felt his honored was lost
7. My heart’s beating awfully His heart suddenly was hurt and
beats very fast
8. Excuse me; I cannot continue this
discussion, my heart is palpitating
Lomov asked Natalya to shut up and
stopped the argument because his
heart beats very fast
9. My left foot has gone to sleep The foot is exhausted after having
hot argument about the Oxen
Meadows

54
10. He’s the best dog in the district
for all that, and so on
The dog is the best one in anywhere
and Lomov didn‟t permit that
Natalya despise him
11. Shut up! My heart’s bursting! Cubukhov feel heartache and wanted
to stop the discussion
12. Don’t excite yourself, my precious
one…. Allow your guess certainly
He talked to Natalya about the dog,
guess that he was pure bred, firm on
his foot, has well sprung ribs
13. There, there, there… my heart’s
burst! My shoulder’s come off …
Where is my …Where is my
shoulder? I die
Lomov felt so sick, and he
unconscious immediately
14. I’m sick! … I can’t breathe! …
Air!
Cubukhov need some help he was
shock seeing Lomov unconscious
immediately
15. Why don’t I put a bullet into my
brain?
Cubukhov was regret, why he
accepted Lomov proposal in
marriage
16. Why haven’t I cut my throat yet?
What am I waiting for?
Cubukhov regret why he didn‟t do
anything
17. Where is my… Where is my
shoulder? I die
He feel the shoulder has been lost
immediately
18. Oh, now I understand … my heart Lomov was conscious after kissed by

55
… stars … I’m happy Natalya as a signal that she accepted
his proposal in marriage
The table above describes the result Hyperbole of figurative language that
1. We just get along somehow, my angel, to your prayer
The meaning: Chubukhov has long not to see Lomov then he call him
seems with the angel who came seems as a prayer
2. My dear fellow, where are you so formal in your get up? Evening dress,
gloves, and so on
The meaning: Chubukhov surprises and asked to Lomov why he was in
formal dress
3. Can you be going anywhere, my treasure?
The meaning: Chubukhov asked to Lomov where did he go, such as he
was as a valuable property in his life
4. Then why are you in evening dress, my precious? As if you’re in a New
Year’s Eve visit!
The meaning: Chubukhov asked to Lomov, why was look like in New
Year Eve by wearing the evening dress
5. I’m dying! Fletch him!
The meaning: Natalya asked his father to pick Lomov back because she
has loved him
6. I’ll cut my throat! I will, indeed! We curse him, abused him drove him
out, and it’s all you … you

56
The meaning: Chubukhov was angry because he felt his honored was
lost, but in the other hand he didn‟t want looking his daughter was sad
7. My heart’s beating awfully
The meaning His heart suddenly was hurt and beats very fast because of
listening what Lomov said
8. Excuse me; I cannot continue this discussion, my heart is palpitating
The meaning: Lomov want to finish the debate it made Lomov was
angry and he consider that Natalya mocked him because his heart beats
very fast
9. My left foot has gone to sleep
The meaning: The foot is exhausted after having hot argument about the
Oxen Meadows Lomov is too tired to stand by him
10. He’s the best dog in the district for all that, and so on
The meaning: Lomov says that his dog is the best one and never
defeated by another dog and he didn‟t permit that Natalya despise him
11. Shut up! My heart’s bursting!
The meaning: Cubukhov asked to another for keeping silent, his
heartache is coming soon after listening to Lomov
12. Don’t excite yourself, my precious one…. Allow your guess certainly
The meaning: He talked to Natalya about the dog, guess that he was
pure bred, firm on his foot, has well sprung ribs, that all
13. There, there, there… my heart’s burst! My shoulder’s come off …

57
The meaning: After getting hot argument with Cubukhov, Lomov felt
so sick, and he unconscious immediately
14. I’m sick! … I can’t breathe! … Air!
The meaning: Chubukhov needs help escape from the disease for seeing
his daughter in happiness
15. Why don’t I put a bullet into my brain?
The meaning: Cubukhov was regret, why he accepted Lomov proposal
in marriage, hearing that Natalya was shock.
16. Why haven’t I cut my throat yet? What am I waiting for?
The meaning: Chubukhov regretted, why he took too long time to
waiting
17. Where is my… Where is my shoulder? I die
The meaning: He feels the shoulder has been lost immediately and dead
is coming round
18. Oh, now I understand … my heart … stars … I’m happy
The meaning: Natalya felt a great happy after accepting the marriage
proposal from Lomov
Table 5.6
Repetition in a Proposal Drama
1. I don’t want anything of yours and
I don’t want to give up anything of
mine. So there!
Natalya doesn‟t want to give up
about her argument belong to Oxen
Meadows

58
2. It’s not true! I’ll prove it! I’ll send
my mowers out to the meadow this
very day!
Natalya consider that the meadow
is hers she will prove it by sending
the mower
3. Oh, unhappy man that I am! I’ll
shoot myself! I’ll hang myself,
we‟ve done for her!
Cubukhov disappointed about
doing nothing to his daughter
4. Give me a knife, give me a pistol Cubukhov wanted to die he felt
confuse
The table above describes the result repetition of figurative language that
1. I don’t want anything of yours and I don’t want to give up anything of
mine. So there!
The meaning: Natalya didn‟t want to give up about her argument belong
to Oxen Meadows and she also didn‟t want anything that not hers.
2. It’s not true! I’ll prove it! I’ll send my mowers out to the meadow this
very day!
The meaning: Natalya consider that the meadow is hers and his and she
will prove it by sending the mowers out
3. Oh, unhappy man that I am! I’ll shoot myself! I’ll hang myself, we‟ve
done for her
The meaning: Chubukhov was regret why he accept Lomov proposal in
marriage

59
4. Give me a knife, give me a pistol
The meaning: Chubukhov want to die as soon as possible
Table 5.7
Tautology in a Proposal Drama
1. But I can’t stand unfairness. Say
what you will, but I can’t stand
unfairness.
Natalya felt that all unfair about the
Oxen Meadows and she didn‟t
accept what Lomov argue
2. But I tell you they’re ours, ours,
ours, ours!
Natalya still in her consideration
about belong Oxen meadow that
hers and belong to Lomov
3. Oxen meadows are mine! You
understand? Mine!
Lomov convinced Natalya by his
argument
4. Oxen Meadow are ours, and I
shan’t give them up, shan’t give
them up, shan’t give them up!
Natalya never give up with her idea
that the Oxen Meadows was hers
5. To propose me? Bring him back!
Back! Ah! Bring him here
Natalya was shock because she
loved Lomov to, then she asked her
father to bring Lomov back
6. There, there, there… my heart’s
burst! My shoulder’s come off …
Where is my …Where is my
shoulder? I die
Lomov is shouting like he really
die, and he unconscious
immediately

60
7. Worse! Worse! Worse! Natalya argues that Lomov‟s has
bad argument about the best dog
8. Champagne! Champagne!
Curtain.
They are enjoying drinking
champagne together
The table above describes the result Tautology of figurative language that
1. But I can’t stand unfairness. Say what you will, but I can’t stand
unfairness.
The meaning: Natalya felt that all unfair about the Oxen Meadows and
she didn‟t accept what Lomov argue then she still never give up in that
argument.
2. But I tell you they’re ours, ours, ours, ours!
The meaning: Natalya still in her consideration about belong Oxen
meadow that hers and belong to Lomov, then she will prove it.
3. Oxen meadows are mine! You understand? Mine!
The meaning: Lomov convinced Natalya by his argument that the
meadow was belong his
4. Oxen Meadows are ours, and I shan’t give them up, shan’t give them
up, shan’t give them up!
The meaning: Natalya argued that the Oxen meadow belong to her and
belong to Chubukhov till she never give up before seeing the proof from
Lomov

61
5. To propose me? Bring him back! Back! Ah! Bring him here
The meaning: Natalya was shock because she loved Lomov too and his
father was regret accepted Lomov‟s proposal, then she asked her father to
bring Lomov back and accepted his marriage proposal
6. There, there, there… my heart’s burst! My shoulder’s come off …
Where is my …Where is my shoulder? I die
The meaning: Lomov was shouting like he really dead and he
unconscious after that.
7. Worse! Worse! Worse!
The meaning: Natalya argued that Lomov‟s has bad argument Natalya
argues that Lomov‟s has bad argument about the best dog, between
Guess and Squeezer.
8. Champagne! Champagne!
The meaning: They are enjoying drinking champagne together after
Lomov having unconscious.
Table 5.8
Asyndeton in a Proposal Drama
1. My dear fellow, why are you so
formal in your get up? Evening
dress, gloves and so on
The formal dress which Lomov
wear in formal event complete with
the gloves etc
2. A hundred times worse! Be hanged
to your Squeezer! His head … eyes
Lomov said that Squeezer is bad
from all part of his body beginning

62
… shoulder from head, eyes etc
The table above describes the result Asyndeton of figurative language that
1. Evening dress, gloves and so on
The meaning: Formal dress which wear in formal event and it also
completely with gloves etc
2. Ahundred times worse! Be hanged to your Squeezer! His head … eyes …
shoulder
The meaning: Natalya and Lomov in hot argument about the dog, and he
said that Squeezer was the worst one, he mentioned the worse of
Squeezer one by one, begun from the head, shoulder, etc
Table 5.9
Polisyndenton in a Proposal Drama
1. Don’t go around and around it,
darling!
Chubukhov wanted to know the
reason of his coming there
2. His help and his love and so on The help of the God which have
given to Cubukhov
3. You will remember that on the
Marusinsky hunt my Guess ran
neck and neck with the count’s dog
Lomov said to Natalya about his
dog
4. He’s old and he’s short in the Lomov told that the part of

63
muzzle squeezer body was worse
The table above describes the result Polisyndenton of figurative language
that occurred in the dialogue of Proposal Drama, they are:
1. Don’t go around and around it, darling!
The meaning: Chubukhov wanted to know the reason of coming there to
the point without obey any question from him
2. His help and his love and so on
The meaning: Chubukhov praises by the help of the God for everything he
hopes
3. You will remember that on the Marusinsky hunt my Guess ran neck and
neck with the count’s dog
The meaning: Lomov said to Natalya about his dog was run, run and run
fast
4. He’s old and he’s short in the muzzle
The meaning: Lomov told that the part of squeezer body was worse than
guess
Table 5.10
Retoric in a Proposal Drama
1. Have you measured? Lomov wanted to know the
measure the jaw of the dog
2. Are you a hunter? Lomov ask to Chubkhov what was

64
he at all
The table above describes the result Retoric of figurative language that
1. Have you measured?
The meaning: Lomov wanted to know the measure the jaw of the dogs; it
was unimportant question that Lomov wanted to know the truth
2. Are you a hunter?
The meaning: Lomov asked to Cubkhov what was he, it also didn‟t need
answer
Table 5.11
Exclamation in a Proposal Drama
1. My darling… How are you? Cubukhov was greeting to Lomov
asked his condition
2. You dare! Natalya said to Lomov, after
getting hot argument about the
Oxen Meadows
3. Oxen meadows are mine! Natalya in hot emotion as the real
owner of the Oxen meadow
4. At once. Don’t yell! Chubukhov asked Natalya not to
shout and go after listening the
marriage proposal from Lomov

65
The table above describes the result Exclamation of figurative language that
1. My darling… How are you?
The meaning: Chubukhov asked the condition of Lomov while he came
to his house
2. You dare!
The meaning: Natalya said to Lomov while them in hot argument
3. Oxen meadows are mine!
The meaning: Lomov got big argument with Natalya about the real
owner of Oxen Meadow; Lomov admitted that the Oxen Meadow
belonging to him, of course it made Natalya in hot emotion as the real
owner of Oxen Meadows.
4. At once. Don’t yell!
The meaning: Chubukhov asked Natalya not to shout and go after
listening the marriage proposal from Lomov
Table 5.12
Irony in a Proposal Drama
1. Oh my heart! ... You’re an
intriguer!
Lomov mocked him and said that
Chubukhov was harm another
person

66
The table above describes the result Irony of figurative language that
1. Oh my heart! ... You’re an intriguer!
The meaning: The are in hottest argument Lomov mocked him without
scary he and said that Chubukhov was harm to another person
Table 5.13
Sinism in a Proposal Drama
1. You are not a neighbor but you are
grabber!
Chubukhov such as thief in
Lomov‟s eyes
2. And you are under the slipper of
your housekeeper!
Chubukhov argue that Lomov was
worse than housekeeper
3. You Lomovs have had lunacy in
your family, all of you!
Cubukhov was angry and mocked
Lomov and his family were crazy
4. And your mother was hump-
backed
Chubukhov also despises that
Lomov‟s mother has bad back
5. Your father was a guzzling
gambler!
Chubukhov still in hot emotion
than mocked that Lomov „s father
was drunker and gambler
6. And there haven’t been many
backbiters to equal your aunt!
Cubukhov stated that Lomov‟s aunt
was similar as traitor
7. The monster! First he takes our
land and then he has then
Natalya and Chubukhov mocked
Lomov as a monster because he

67
impudence to abuse us took their meadows
8 And that the blind hen, yes that
turnip-ghost has the confounded
cheek to make a proposal, and
soon! What? Aproposal.
Cubukhov told to Natalya that he
was regret why he accept Lomov
proposal in marriage
9. Boy! Milksop! Fool! I‟m sick!
Sick!
Chubukov said that Lomov was un
spirit and silly person
10. Shut up or I’ll shoot you like a
partridge! You fool!
Chubukhov asked Lomov to keep
silent otherwise he wanted to shoot
him such as an animal
The table above describes the result Sinism of figurative language that
1. You are not a neighbor but you are grabber!
The meaning: Lomov said that Cubukhov is thief in his eyes because
disputing the Oxen Meadows.
2. And you are under the slipper of your housekeeper!
The meaning: Chubukhov was angry and state that Lomov was worse
than housekeeper.
3. You Lomov have had lunacy in your family, all of you!
The meaning: Cubukhov was angry and mocked Lomov and his families
were crazy all of them.
4. And your mother was hump-backed

68
The meaning: Chubukhov also despises that Lomov‟s mother has bad
back.
5. Your father was a guzzling gambler!
The meaning: Chubukhov still in hot emotion than mocked that Lomov „s
father was drunker and gambler
6. And there haven’t been many backbiters to equal your aunt!
The meaning: Cubukhov stated that Lomov‟s aunt was similar as traitor
7. The monster! First he takes our land and then he has then impudence to
abuse us
The meaning: Natalya and Chubukhov mocked Lomov as a monster
because he took their meadows
8. And that the blind hen, yes that turnip-ghost has the confounded cheek to
make a proposal, and soon!
The meaning: After getting hot argument between them Cubukhov told
to Natalya that he was regret why he accept Lomov proposal in marriage
9. Boy! Milksop! Fool! I‟m sick! Sick!
The meaning: They were in debate; Chubukov said that Lomov was un
spirit and silly person,
10. Shut up or I’ll shoot you like a partridge! You fool!
The meaning: Chubukhov asked Lomov to keep silent otherwise he
wanted to shoot him such as an animal which a round body and a short
tail.

69
Table 5.14
Sarcasm in a Proposal Drama
1. You pettifogger! All your people
were like that! All of them!
Chubukhov seems as a person who
give too much attention to small
details that are not important in a
way that shows a limited mind
2. The villain, the scarecrow! Cubukhov said to Lomov that he
was a bad person who harms other
people or breaks the law
3. Boy! Pup! Lomov, Natalya and Chubukhov
were in hottest argument they argue
about the better dog, Guess or
Squeezer, when Cubukhov mocked
and underestimate Lomov was
stupid and such as small son
4. Old rat! Jesuit! Old large animal similar mouse
which have long tail
5. And don’t set foot in my house
again!
Natalya didn‟t want to see Lomov
in her house anymore
The researcher going to analyze the sarcasm used in the dialogue, they are:
1. You pettifogger! All your people were like that! All of them!

70
The meaning: Lomov considered that Chubukhov seems as a person who
gives too much attention to small things that are not important in a way
that shows a limited mind
2. The villain, the scarecrow!
The meaning: Cubukhov said to Lomov that he was a bad person who
harms other people or breaks the law
3. Boy! Pup!
The meaning: Lomov, Natalya and Chubukhov were in hottest argument
they argue about the better dog, Guess or Squeezer, when Cubukhov
mocked and underestimate Lomov was stupid and such as small son
4. Old rat! Jesuit!
The meaning: Chubukhov called Lomov that he was such an old large
animal similar mouse which has long tail
5. And don’t set foot in my house again
The meaning: After getting long arguing, Natalya didn‟t want to see
Lomov in her house anymore
Table 5.15
Satire in a Proposal Drama
1. You ought to sit at home with your
palpitations, and not go tracking
animals.
Stay at home was better

71
The researcher going to analyze the satire used in the dialogue, they are:
1. You ought to sit at home with your palpitations, and not go tracking
animals.
The meaning: Chubukhov said to Lomov that stayed at home was better
because he didn‟t hunt only argued with another person about the dog

72
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION
In this chapter, the researcher presents conclusion, implication and
suggestion
A. Conclusion
After reading and identifying the Proposal Drama, The writer concludes
that the results of the data analysis are varied:
1. There are 15 types of figurative language such as:
a. Association
There are 5 sentences that found in script of proposal drama
b. Symbolic
c. Euphemism
d. Tropen
e. Hyperbole
f. Repetition
g. Tautology
h. Asyndeton

73
i. Polisyndenton
j. Rhetoric
k. Exclamation
l. Irony
There is 1 sentence that found in script of proposal drama
m. Sinism
n. Sarcasm
o. Satire
There is 1 sentence that found in script of proposal drama
2. Type of figurative language which is dominantly used in a drama the
proposal is hyperbole
B. Implication
This research is implied to know more about types of figurative language
and also its meaning that can be applied when we, talk, read, write and watch
the drama and movie. When we have already understood about it, certainly it is
simply and very easy to us for knowing other speaker intention and the deep
meaning of it.

74
C. Suggestion
The researcher would like to give some suggestions. For readers and
students who are interested in analyzing literary works because it‟s
subjectively, especially about drama it is suggested to understand the
figurative language contained in the drama before they understand the whole
drama because by understanding the figurative language it will make them
easier to catch the meaning, message, even the theme of the drama.
For the further researcher it is hoped that this script can be used as
references to conduct another research on figurative language and it is
contextual meaning of different drama, and they can analyze the same drama
The Proposal but in different aspect such as discuss the themes, plot, even the
syntax, pragmatics or the semantics of the drama.

75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, M.H. 1999. A Glossary of Literary Terms. United States: Thomson
Learning Inc.
Ali, Lukman. 1995. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka
Afifudin, 2009. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung : Pustaka Setya.
Aminudin, 2009. Pengantar Apresiasi Karya Sastra. Bandung: Sinar Baru
Bradshaw, Robert, “Figurative of Speech,” Journal (online)
Cranz, Diane, 2008. Cambridge Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary, (Third Edition),
UK: Cambridge University Press
Djuanda,D., Iswara, P.D., 2006. Apresiasi Sastra Indonesia. Bandung: UPI Press.
Endraswara, Suwardi, 2003. Metodologi Penelitian Sastra, Etimologi, Model,
Teori dan Aplikasi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Widyatama.
Bulinger, E.W., 1968. Introduction to Figure of Speech. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House.
Izzati, Lailatul, 2013. The Analysis of Figurative Language Used in Journey 2:
The Mysterious Island Movie. Unpublished. The English Department
of Educational Faculty, State Islamic Study Institute (STAIN)
SALATIGA.
Keraf, Gorys. 1986. Diksi dan Gaya Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Jakarta.
K.Okke., Zaimar. S., Majas dan Pembentukannya.(online)
http:staff.ui.ac.id/internal/130353853/publikasi gaya bahas.OKZ.pdf
Letwin, D, Joe, and Stockdale, R. 2008. The Architecture of Drama. UK. The
Scarecrow Press, Inch.
Muhammad. 2011. Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Yogjakarta: Arr- Ruzz Media
Nurgiantoro, Burhan, 2010. Teori Pengkajian Fiksi. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada
University Press.
Pradobo, Rahman Joko. 2005. Beberapa Teori Sastra, Metode, Kritik dan
Penerapannya.Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

76
Ratna, Nyoman Kutha.2004. Teori Metode dan Teknik Penelitian Sastra.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Siswantoro, 2010. Metodologi Penelitian Sastra. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Siswantoro, 2005. Apresiasi Puisi-Puisi Sastra Inggris. (Second Edition),
Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.
Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Duta Wacana
University Press.
Tarigan, Henry Guntur, 1985. Pengajaran Gaya Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Toner, and Whittome, Elizabeth, 2003. As Level English Language and
Literature. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wiranto, Bambang, 2007. Kiat Menulis Karya Ilmiah dalam Bahasa Inggris.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka.
W, Retno, 2008. Bermain Peran Bermain Drama. Yogyakarta: Empat Pilar
Pendidikan.
http://people.Brandeis. Edu/-teuber/chekovbio.html (15th June 2014)
http: // plays.about.com/od/plays/a/ the-marriage-Proposal.html (15th
June 2014)

77
APPENDIX
Characters
Stepan Stepanovitch Chubukov as a Landowner
Natalya Stepanovna as Chubukov‟s Daughter, Twenty-Five Years Old
Ivan Vassilevitch Lomov, A Neighbour Of Chubukov, A Large And Hearty, But
Very Suspicious Landowner
Setting
Chubukov's Country-House
Chubukov : My dear fellow, whom do I see! Ivan
Vassilevitch! I am extremely glad! [Squeezes his
hand] Now this is a surprise, my darling... How
are you?
Lomov : Thank you. And how may you be getting on?
Chubukov : We just get along somehow, my angel, to your
prayers, and so on. Sit down, please do. ... Now,
you know, you shouldn't forget all about your
neighbors, my darling. My dear fellow, why are
you so formal in your get-up? Evening dress,
gloves, and so on. Can you be going anywhere,
my treasure?
Lomov : No, I've come only to see you, honored Stepan
Stepanovitch.
Chubukov : Then why are you in evening dress, my precious?
As if you're paying a New Year's Eve visit!
Lomov : Well, you see, it's like this. [Takes his arm] I've
come to you, honoured Stepan Stepanovitch, to
trouble you with a request. Not once or twice have
I already had the privilege of applying to you for
help, and you have always, so to speak ... I must

78
ask your pardon, I am getting excited. I shall drink
some water, honored Stepan Stepanovitch.
[Drinks.]
Chubukov : [Aside] He's come to borrow money! Shan't give
him any! [Aloud] What is it, my beauty?
Lomov : You see, Honor Stepanitch ... I beg pardon, Stepan
Honor itch ... I mean, I'm awfully excited, as you
will please notice. ... In short, you alone can help
me, though I don't deserve it, of course ... and
haven‟t any rights to count on your assistance. ...
Chubukov : Oh, don't go round and round it, darling! Spit it
out! Well?
Lomov : One moment ... this very minute. The fact is, I've
come to ask the hand of your daughter, Natalya
Stepanovna, in marriage.
Chubukov : [Joyfully] By Jove! Ivan Vassilevitch! Say it
again--I didn't hear it all!
Lomov : I have the honour to ask ...
Chubukov : [Interrupting] My dear fellow ... I'm so glad, and
so on. ... Yes, indeed, and all that sort of thing.
[Embraces and kisses LOMOV] I've been hoping
for it for a long time. It's been my continual desire.
[Sheds a tear] And I've always loved you, my
angel, as if you were my own son. May God give
you both His help and His love and so on, and I
did so much hope ... What am I behaving in this
idiotic way for? I'm off my balance with joy,
absolutely off my balance! Oh, with all my soul ...
I'll go and call Natasha, and all that.
Lomov : [Greatly moved] Honoured Stepan Stepanovitch,
do you think I may count on her consent?

79
Chubukov : Why, of course, my darling, and ... as if she won't
consent! She's in love; egad, she's like a love-sick
cat, and so on. ... Shan't be long! [Exit.]
Natalya Stepanovna : Well, there! It's you, and papa said, "Go; there's a
merchant come for his goods." How do you do,
Ivan Vassilevitch!
Lomov : How do you do, honoured Natalya Stepanovna?
Natalya Stepanovna : You must excuse my apron and néligé ... we're
shelling peas for drying. Why haven't you been
here for such a long time? Sit down. [They seat
themselves] Won't you have some lunch?
Lomov : No, thank you, I've had some already.
Natalya Stepanovna : Then smoke. ... Here are the matches. ... The
weather is splendid now, but yesterday it was so
wet that the workmen didn't do anything all day.
How much hay have you stacked? Just think, I felt
greedy and had a whole field cut, and now I'm not
at all pleased about it because I'm afraid my hay
may rot. I ought to have waited a bit. But what's
this? Why, you're in evening dress! Well, I never!
Are you going to a ball, or what?--though I must
say you look better. Tell me, why are you got up
like that?
Lomov : [Excited] You see, honoured Natalya Stepanovna
... the fact is, I've made up my mind to ask you to
hear me out. ... Of course you'll be surprised and
perhaps even angry, but a ... [Aside] It's awfully
cold!
Natalya Stepanovna : What's the matter? [Pause] Well?
Lomov : I shall try to be brief. You must know, honored
Natalya Stepanovna, that I have long, since my

80
childhood, in fact, had the privilege of knowing
your family. My late aunt and her husband, from
whom, as you know, I inherited my land, always
had the greatest respect for your father and your
late mother. The Lomovs and the Chubukovs have
always had the friendliest, and I might almost say
the most affectionate, regard for each other. And,
as you know, my land is a near neighbor of yours.
You will remember that my Oxen Meadows touch
your birch woods.
Natalya Stepanovna : Excuse my interrupting you. You say, "my Oxen
Meadows. ..." But are they yours?
Lomov : Yes, mine.
Natalya Stepanovna : What are you talking about? Oxen Meadows are
ours, not yours!
Lomov : No, mine, honored Natalya Stepanovna.
Natalya Stepanovna : Well, I never knew that before. How do you make
that out?
Lomov : How? I'm speaking of those Oxen Meadows
which are wedged in between your birchwoods
and the Burnt Marsh.
Natalya Stepanovna : Yes, yes. ... They're ours.
Lomov : No, you're mistaken, honoured Natalya
Stepanovna, they're mine.
Natalya Stepanovna : Just think, Ivan Vassilevitch! How long have they
been yours?
Lomov : How long? As long as I can remember
Natalya Stepanovna : Really, you won't get me to believe that!
Lomov : But you can see from the documents, honored
Natalya Stepanovna. Oxen Meadows, it's true,
were once the subject of dispute, but now

81
everybody knows that they are mine. There's
nothing to argue about. You see, my aunt's
grandmother gave the free use of these Meadows
in perpetuity to the peasants of your father's
grandfather, in return for which they were to make
bricks for her. The peasants belonging to your
father's grandfather had the free use of the
Meadows for forty years, and had got into the
habit of regarding them as their own, when it
happened that...
Natalya Stepanovna : No, it isn't at all like that! Both my grandfather
and great-grandfather reckoned that their land
extended to Burnt Marsh--which means that Oxen
Meadows were ours. I don't see what there is to
argue about. It's simply silly!
Lomov : I'll show you the documents, Natalya Stepanovna!
Natalya Stepanovna : No, you're simply joking, or making fun of me. ...
What a surprise! We've had the land for nearly
three hundred years, and then we're suddenly told
that it isn't ours! Ivan Vassilevitch, I can hardly
believe my own ears. ... These Meadows aren't
worth much to me. They only come to five
dessiatins [Note: 13.5 acres], and are worth
perhaps 300 roubles [Note: £30.], but I can't stand
unfairness. Say what you will, but I can't stand
unfairness.
Lomov : Hear me out, I implore you! The peasants of your
father's grandfather, as I have already had the
honour of explaining to you, used to bake bricks
for my aunt's grandmother. Now my aunt's
grandmother, wishing to make them a pleasant...

82
Natalya Stepanovna : I can't make head or tail of all this about aunts and
grandfathers and grandmothers! The Meadows are
ours, and that's all.
Lomov : Mine
Natalya Stepanovna : Ours! You can go on proving it for two days on
end, you can go and put on fifteen dress-jackets,
but I tell you they're ours, ours, ours! I don't want
anything of yours and I don't want to give up
anything of mine. So there!
Lomov : Natalya Ivanovna, I don't want the Meadows, but
I am acting on principle. If you like, I'll make you
a present of them.
Natalya Stepanovna : I can make you a present of them myself, because
they're mine! Your behaviour, Ivan Vassilevitch,
is strange, to say the least! Up to this we have
always thought of you as a good neighbor, a
friend: last year we lent you our threshing-
machine, although on that account we had to put
off our own threshing till November, but you
behave to us as if we were gipsies. Giving me my
own land, indeed! No, really, that's not at all
neighbourly! In my opinion, it's even impudent, if
you want to know....
Lomov : Then you make out that I'm a land-grabber?
Madam, never in my life have I grabbed anybody
else's land, and I shan't allow anybody to accuse
me of having done so. ... [Quickly steps to the
carafe and drinks more water] Oxen Meadows are
mine!
Natalya Stepanovna : It's not true, they're ours!
Lomov : Mine!

83
Natalya Stepanovna : It's not true! I'll prove it! I'll send my mowers out
to the Meadows this very day!
Lomov : What?
Natalya Stepanovna : My mowers will be there this very day!
Lomov : I'll give it to them in the neck!
Natalya Stepanovna : You dare!
Lomov : [Clutches at his heart] Oxen Meadows are mine!
You understand? Mine!
Natalya Stepanovna : Please don't shoot! You can shout yourself hoarse
in your own house, but here I must ask you to
restrain yourself!
Lomov : If it wasn't, madam, for this awful, excruciating
palpitation, if my whole inside wasn't upset, I'd
talk to you in a different way! [Yells] Oxen
Meadows are mine!
Natalya Stepanovna : Ours!
Lomov : Mine!
Natalya Stepanovna : Ours!
Lomov : Mine!
[Enter CHUBUKOV.]
Chubukov : What's the matter? What are you shouting at?
Natalya Stepanovna : Papa, please tell to this gentleman who owns
Oxen Meadows, we or he?
Lomov : But, please, Stepan Stepanitch, how can they be
yours? Do be a reasonable man! My aunt's
grandmother gave the Meadows for the temporary
and free use of your grandfather's peasants. The
peasants used the land for forty years and got as
accustomed to it as if it was their own, when it
happened that ...
Chubukov : Excuse me, my precious. ... You forget just this,

84
that the peasants didn't pay your grandmother and
all that, because the Meadows were in dispute, and
so on. And now everybody knows that they're
ours. It means that you haven't seen the plan.
Lomov : I'll prove to you that they're mine!
Chubukov : You won't prove it, my darling.
Lomov : I shall!
Chubukov : Dear one, why yell like that? You won't prove
anything just by yelling. I don't want anything of
yours, and don't intend to give up what I have.
Why should I? And you know, my beloved, that if
you propose to go on arguing about it, I'd much
sooner give up the meadows to the peasants than
to you. There!
Lomov : I don't understand! How have you the right to give
away somebody else's property?
Chubukov : You may take it that I know whether I have the
right or not. Because, young man, I'm not used to
being spoken to in that tone of voice, and so on: I,
young man, am twice your
Lomov : No, you just think I'm a fool and want to have me
on! You call my land yours, and then you want me
to talk to you calmly and politely! Good
neighbours don't behave like that, Stepan
Stepanitch! You're not a neighbour, you're a
grabber!
Chubukov : What's that? What did you say?
Natalya Stepanovna : Papa, send the mowers out to the Meadows at
once!
Chubukov : What did you say, sir?
Natalya Stepanovna : Oxen Meadows are ours, and I shan't give them

85
up, shan't give them up, shan't give them up!
Lomov : We'll see! I'll have the matter taken to court, and
then I'll show you!
Chubukov : To court? You can take it to court, and all that!
You can! I know you; you're just on the look-out
for a chance to go to court, and all that. ... You
pettifogger! All your people were like that! All of
them!
Lomov : Never Mind About My People! The Lomovs Have
All Been Honourable People, And Not One Has
Ever Been Tried For Embezzlement, Like Your
Grandfather!
Chubukov : You Lomovs have had lunacy in your family, all
of you!
Natalya Stepanovna : All, all, all!
Chubukov : Your grandfather was a drunkard, and your
younger aunt, Nastasya Mihailovna, ran away
with an architect, and so on
Lomov : And your mother was hump-backed. [Clutches at
his heart] Something pulling in my side. ... My
head. ... Help! Water!
Chubukov : Your father was a guzzling gambler!
Natalya Stepanovna : And there haven't been many backbiters to equal
your aunt!
Lomov : My left foot has gone to sleep. ... You're an
intriguer. ... Oh, my heart! ... And it's an open
secret that before the last elections you bri ... I can
see stars. ... Where's my hat?
Natalya Stepanovna : It's low! It's dishonest! It's mean!
Chubukov : And you're just a malicious, double-faced
intriguer! Yes!

AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV

AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV

Similar to AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV (20)

More from Robin Beregovska

More from Robin Beregovska (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AN ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN A DRAMA THE PROPOSAL BY ANTON CEKHOV