ShakespeareandtheEnglishLanguage

WhenShakespeare’splayswerefirstprintedtogether,BenJonsonprovideda

poemdescribingShakespeareas‘notofanage,butforalltime’.1Subsequent

criticismbuiltonthis,constructingwhathasbeencalledthe‘myth’of

Shakespeareasaculturalphenomenon:a‘universal’geniuswhosequalities

transcendhistory,andwhocan‘speak’tousacrosstime.2

ThemythofShakespeare’suniversalityispowerful;butitisalsoverydangerous,

especiallyinrelationtohislanguage.ShakespeareusedEnglishataparticular

momentinitshistory:itsvocabularywasexpandingrapidlywhileitsgrammar

standardised.Hehadchoicestomakeaboutgrammaticalconstructions,

pronouns,andnounsthatarenolongeropentous.ButShakespeare’sculture

alsothoughtaboutlanguagedifferently,andapplieddifferentaestheticvaluesto

it.IfweseeShakespeareas‘universal’,weruntheriskofblindingourselvesto

thestrangenessofShakespeare’slinguisticpracticeandculture.

InthisreadingIwillbrieflyoutlinesomeoftheseissues.3First,howimposing

ourownaestheticvaluesleadsustomisjudgeShakespeare’svocabulary.Second,

howafailuretounderstandwhattheRenaissancethoughtaboutmeaningstops

usappreciatingShakespeare’swordplay.Inafinalsection,Imoveawayfrom

words,tosuggestthatShakespeare’sreallinguisticgeniusmightinsteadbe

foundingrammar.

1 Words

OneofthecommonestclaimsaboutShakespeare’slanguageisthatheinvented

hundredsofwords.Forexample,thewriterMelvynBraggstatesthat

Shakespearedeclaredhimselftobe‘Amanonfirefornewwords’.4Afine

rhetoricalflourish,butunfortunatelynotonlyacarelessmisquotationofLove’s

Labour’sLost(‘amanoffire‐newwords’1.1.175),butalsoagross

misrepresentationofwhatthelineactuallymeans.Itisaboutthecharacter

Armado,notShakespeare,anditimpliesthatthenewwordsheinventsarea

foolishlinguisticpretention.

Thisshouldgiveuspause,butdidShakespeare,nonethelessinventalotof

words?Itistruethathisnamecropsupregularlyasthefirstcitationfornew

words,andnewmeaningsforoldwords,intheOxfordEnglishDictionary.

However,sinceJürgenSchäfer’sworkinthe1980s,5wehaveknownthatsuch

apparentcreativityhastobetreatedwithcaution.Thearmyofreaderswhoread

EnglishbooksforexamplesfortheOEDsearchedShakespearemorecarefully

thantheysearchedothercontemporarywriters,andinmanycasestheymissed

earlierusesofthosewordsbywriterswhowerenotShakespeare.Furthermore,

widerstudiesofEnglishinShakespeare’stimehaveshownthatalmostall

writerscoinednewwordsintheperiod:theEnglishvocabularyexpandedmore

quicklyatthistimethanatanyother(thoughmanywordswereusedonceor

twiceandneveragain).6OncethebiasintheOEDcollectingisallowedfor,

Shakespearedoesnotlookunusualwhencomparedtohiscontemporaries.In

fact,MarvinSpevackhassuggestedthatShakespeareavoidsoneofthemain

sourcesofnewwords‐Latin‐usingupto50%fewerLatin‐derivedtermsthan

theaverageofhiscontemporaries(andthiswouldmatchtheimpliedcriticismof

Armado’sLatinatevocabularyinLove’sLabour’sLost).7Shakespeare’spreference

seemstohavebeentoextend,oftenbydazzlingmetaphoricalleap,themeaning

offamiliarwords,ratherthanconjureentirelynewonesfromthesemanticdeep.

SowemustbecautiousaboutstatisticsclaimingtoshowthatShakespearewas

thefirstuserofmanywords.What,though,ofanothercommonclaim:that

Shakespeare,asbefitshisgenius,hadamuchbiggervocabularythananyofhis

contemporaries?8Again,atfirstsighttheevidenceseemsclear:Shakespeare

usesmorewords(c.20,500)thancontemporarieslikeJonson(c.19,000)and

Middleton(c.14,000).Butitisnotquiteassimpleasthis:morewritingby

Shakespearesurvives‐sohehadmoreopportunitytousedifferentwords.When

wecomparetherateatwhichheuseswordshehasnotemployedbefore,he

turnsouttobestrictlyaverage.9Itisasifwewerecomparingthecareersof

threegoalscorers:JackieMilburn,MalcolmMacdonald,andAlanShearersay.

Herearetheircareertotals:10

name totalgoalsscored

JackieMilburn 200

MalcolmMacdonald 121

AlanShearer 206

Onthesefigures,itlooksasthoughMilburnandShearerwereclearlymore

prolificstrikersthanMacdonald‐iftheywerewriters,wemightbetalkingabout

themhavinglargervocabularies.Butweareoverlookingacrucialextrapieceof

evidence:howmanygamestheyplayed.Whenweaddthisin,thepicture

changes:

name totalgoalsscored totalgamesplayed

JackieMilburn 200 397

MalcolmMacdonald 121 228

AlanShearer 206 395

Aplayerwhoplaysmoregames,likeawriterwhowritesmoretexts,gives

himselfmoreopportunitiestoscore:weneedtolookattherateatwhicha

strikerscores:

name totalgoalsscored totalgamesplayed goalspergame

JackieMilburn 200 397 0.504

MalcolmMacdonald 121 228 0.531

AlanShearer 206 395 0.522

Nowweseethattheirratesofscoringarerathersimilar:about0.5goalsper

game,withMacdonaldandShearerslightlyaheadofMilburn.Similarlywith

Shakespeare:heusesmorewords(scoresmoregoals)thanhiscontemporaries,

buthewritesmoreplays(playsmoregames).Oncewelookattherateatwhich

heuseswordshehasnotusedbefore,helooksverysimilartothosearoundhim.

Whyisourculturesokeenonthefalsenotionofan‘exceptional’Shakespeare,

inventingwordsandwieldingagargantuanvocabulary?Ournotionsofpoetic

geniuscomefromtheRomantics,andforthem,originalityandnewnesswere

keyelementsinaesthetictheory.Eventoday,essentiallyRomanticnotionsof

whatartshouldbeunderliemostofouraestheticjudgements.Newnessisall:

adaptation,remaking(infilmandelsewhere)occupylowlyrungsonthescaleof

artisticachievement.

ButtheRenaissancehadnosuchfetishfornewness:indeed,itwasmorelikelyto

beviewedsuspiciously.ThroughoutShakespeare’splays,characterswhospeak

withauthority,disparagethenew,andthefashionable,asephemeral(Mercutio

dismisseslinguisticfashionwhenhederides‘newtunersofaccent’Romeoand

Juliet2.4.29).‘Original’didnothavethepositiveconnotationsforShakespeareit

hasforus‐andnorwas‘artificial’pejorative.WheretheRomanticscelebrated

thepoet’sabilitytocreateoutofnothing,Renaissancethinkerswerewaryofthe

dangersofinventingthingsthathadnever,andcouldneverexist:notbecause

theywereinherentlybad,butbecausetheirrelationshiptotruthwasunstable.

Defendersofpoetryandtheimaginationcelebratedtheaccessitofferedtothe

ideal:tohowthingsshouldbe.Butmanydistrusted‘new’orfictionalideasas

likelytobefalse.Shakespeare,weshouldremember,wasanadapter,notan

originator,ofstories.

Wecansee,then,thatourown,historicallyconditioned,aestheticvaluesleadus

toassumethatShakespearemusthaveexceededhiscontemporariesinlinguistic

inventionandpotential.Intermsofhisvocabulary,however,asthestatistics

show,Shakespeareisresolutelyaverage.

2 Meaningsandpuns

IfouraesthetictheorieshaveledustooverestimateShakespeare’svocabulary,

theyhavealsocausedustorejecthisuseofthepun(anotheraspectofhis

languagewhichistypicalofitstime).DrJohnsondismissedShakespeare’spuns

astrivial,andmostsubsequentcriticismhasagreed.Isitnotstrange,though,

thatthegreatestwriterinEnglish(andhisculture)shouldhavespentsomuch

energyonpointlesslinguisticgames?IfweputShakespearebackintohistory,it

becomespossibletoexplain,andperhapsevenappreciate,hiswordplay.

TheRenaissancehadtwocompetingtheoriesabouthowlanguageworked,and

specificallyhowwordscametohavemeanings.Thedominantonewas

Aristotle’s,anditheldthatlanguagewasanarbitraryhumanconstruction:

wordshadmeaningbecausepeopleagreedwhateachdesignated.Anyword

couldjustaseasilymeansomethingelse‐aslongasconventionallowed.Juliet

givesatextbookaccountofthiswhenshebemoansthefactthatRomeo,asa

Montague,isfromafamilybitterlyatwarwithherown:

‘Tisbutthynamethatismyenemy:

Thouartthyself,thoughnotaMontague.

What’sMontague?Itisnorhandnorfoot

Norarmnorfacenoranyotherpart

Belongingtoaman.Obesomeothername.

What’sinaname?Thatwhichwecallarose

Byanyotherwordwouldsmellassweet;

SoRomeowould,werehenotRomeocall’d,

Retainthatdearperfectionwhichheowes

Withoutthattitle.Romeo,doffthyname,

Andforthyname,whichisnopartofthee,

Takeallmyself

(RomeoandJuliet2.2.38‐49)

IfRomeowerenotaMontague,hewouldstillbehimself:hisnameisnota

physicalpartofhimlikehishandorfoot.Arosewouldsmellthesameifweused

adifferenttermforit‐andRomeowouldstillbeasperfectifhehadadifferent

name.

ThealternativetothisarbitraryviewofmeaningwasassociatedwithPlato,and

itscrucialdifferencewasintherejectionofthenotionofarbitrarinessin

language.ThePlatonicviewpositedadeep,divineoroccult,connectionbetween

theformofwords(theirsoundsorspelling)andtheirmeanings.‘Rose’,bythis

view,didnotjustdesignateaparticularplantbecauseeveryoneagreedthatit

would:itsomehowhadtheessenceof‘rose’initsstructure‐inthesameway

that‘H2O’tellsyousomethingaboutthenatureofwaterthat‘water’doesnot.

GenerallyintheRenaissance,commentatorsonlanguageshiftbetweenthetwo

viewpoints,seeminglyuntroubledbythefactthattheyaremutuallyexclusive.

Writerswhobeginarguingforoneposition,arelikelytoreverttotheother,

consciouslyornot,apageortwolater.Thisis,tosomeextent,aconsequenceof

therhetoricalmethodwhichdominatedintellectuallifeintheperiod.Rhetorical

teachingtendedtoputmoreemphasisonthearrangementandtreatmentof

materialthanonreachingaconclusiveanswer.Inthiscase,however,therewas

anotherreasonforvacillationbetweenthepositions.ThePlatonicpositionon

meaning,irrationalasitwasfrequentlyshowntobe,hadanallureitretains

today.Thedreamofbeingabletodothingswithlanguage‐reallydothings‐

runsthroughmagic,religion,evenmuchearlyscience.

The allure of the Platonic position can perhaps be seen in the way Shakespeare, and

other writers at the time, treat puns. For us, puns are often rather feeble, mechanical

exercises in spotting arbitrary similarity between the forms of words otherwise

unrelated: ‘son’ and ‘sun’ for example, when Richard has the ‘winter’ of ‘discontent’

banished by the ‘son of York’ (Richard III 1.1.1-2). But on a Platonic view, the

similarity is not necessarily arbitrary - and this is reinforced by the fact that neither

‘son’ nor ‘sun’ had a fixed spelling in Shakespeare’s time - so they are arguably not

different words in our sense at all. Viewed this way, puns become witty plays on

multiple meanings, all of which are kept alive, rather than static, laboured jokes: a

true Shakespearean pun is one word with two simultaneous interpretations - not two

words, each with a distinct meaning. AndperhapsthePlatonicpositionisnotas

irrationalaswemightthink:afterall,inJuliet’scase,ifRomeo’snamewas

different,thenthingswouldbetoo,andtheywouldbefreetomarry.

3 Grammar

IfShakespeare’slinguisticgeniusisnotmanifestinthesizeorfecundityofhis

words,whatisitthathedoesasawriterthatmakeshimstandout?Atthestart

ofHenryV,aprologueintroducestheplay,apologisingforthefactthatthesmall

theatre,andlimitedactingtroupe,cannotdojusticetothewidefieldsofFrance,

orthehugearmiesthatfoughtthere.Theaudience,theprologuedeclares,must

makeupforthiswiththeirimaginations:

Think,whenwetalkofhorses,thatyouseethem

Printingtheirproudhoofsi’th’receivingearth

(26‐7)

ThesetwolinesaretypicalofthewayShakespearecreateseffectsoutofentirely

familiarlanguage,ratherthanbyinventingnewwords,andalsothewayhe

combinessemanticeffects(todowithmeaning)withsyntacticones(todowith

grammar).

Let’sbeginwithsemanticeffects.Semanticists(linguistswhostudymeaning)

commonlyidentifyaqualitytheycall‘animacy’innouns.‘Animacy’referstothe

degreetowhichsomethingisalive,andtheextenttowhichitiscapableof

growth,movement,andthought.Plantsarethusanimate,inthattheycangrow,

buttheygenerallylackthecapacityforintentionalmovement,sotheyareless

animatethanbirdsandanimals‐whichinturnarelessanimatethanhumans,as

theylackthefullrangeofhumanthought.

Ofthethreenounsinthepassage(‘horses’,‘hoofs’,‘earth’),wecanarguethat

‘horses’arethemostanimate,‘hoofs’thenext(since,althoughtheyconsistof

hard,inertmatter,theyareatleastattachedtoalivingthing),and‘earth’the

least.However,ifwelookatthelanguageofthepassage,wediscoverthatall

threearetreatedasiftheyhadmoreanimacythanwemightexpect.

Forexample,thehorsesdonotsimplyplaceorstamptheirhoovesintheearth:

theyprintthem.Printingisaspecificallyhumanactivity–sothemetaphorical

useofitherefunctionstoimplyconsciousvolitiononthepartofthehorses,and

thusincreasestheiranimacy.Similarly,whenthehorses’hoofsaredescribedas

‘proud’,themetaphorimpliesadegreeofanimacynotnormallyassociatedwith

thenoun‐hard,deadtissuecannothavefeelingsofpride.Finally,theearthis

describedas‘receiving’‐again,anadjectivewhichincreasesanimacyby

implyingactivevolition.

Runninginparallelwiththesesemanticeffectsaresyntacticoneswithasimilar

purpose,andwhicharealsotypicalofShakespeare.Themostnormalorderof

elementsinEnglishclausesis:

[subject]+[verb]+[object]

whichwecanrefertoas‘SVO’.Thereisanexampleofaclausewhichmatches

thisinthefirstlinequotedabove:

Subject[you]Verb[see]Object[them]

NormallyinEnglish,thesubjectisahighlyanimatenounorpronoun,andthe

objectisoftenlessanimate.Here,thehuman,highlyanimatepronoun‘you’does

something(‘see’)tothenon‐human,lessanimate,horses(‘them’).Thisis,cridely

speaking,howtheworldworks:moreanimatethingstypicallydothingstoless

animatethings.Nowlet’slookagainatShakespeare’slines,withsubjects,objects,

andverbsmarked:

Think,whenS(we)V(talk)ofO(horses),thatS(you)V(see)O(them)

V(Printing)O(theirproudhoofs)i’th’receivingearth

‘them’,aswehavealreadyseen,istheobjectof‘see’.Butnoticewhathappens:as

soonasthehorsesareintroducedintheroleofobject(‘them’),theyare

transformedintothesubjectof‘Printing’.Itisthehorses(them)whoareseen

byus,butitisalsothehorses(they)whodotheprinting.Byasleightof

grammaticalhand,thehorsesaresimultaneouslytheinactiveobjectof‘see’and

theactivesubjectof‘Printing’:

Subject[you]Verb[see]<Object[them]Subject>Verb[printing]

Therapidshiftwehavejustobservedfromgrammaticalobjecttosubjectrole,

withanimpliedincreaseinactivityandanimation,isverycommonin

Shakespeare,whoseemstohaveaneedtoanimate,andactivate,almost

everythinghementions,howeverinactiveorinanimatewemightthinkit.Itis

alsotypicalofShakespearethatheusesbothgrammaticalandsemanticmeans

toachievethis(making‘them’simultaneouslyanobjectandasubject,andusing

thesemanticimplicationsof‘Printing’toincreasetheanimacyof‘horses’).

AfurtherfeatureofShakespeare’ssyntaxisunusualwordorder.JohnPorter

HoustonhasidentifiedatendencyforShakespearetoinverttheobjectandthe

verb,producingsubject‐object‐verbclauses(SOV),ratherthanthenormal

subject‐verb‐object(SVO).11Atitssimplest,thisaddsemphasis,andperhaps

strikesusasarchaic,withoutcausingseriousproblemsinunderstanding:

Queen Hamlet,thouhastthyfathermuchoffended.

Hamlet Mother,youhavemyfathermuchoffended.

(Hamlet3.4.8‐9)

InPresent‐dayEnglishwewouldexpect‘S(thou)V(hastmuchoffended)O(thy

father)’and‘S(you)V(havemuchoffended)O(myfather)’,withtheobjects‘thy

father’and‘myfather’intheirmorenormalpositionaftertheverb.When

ShakespeareemploysSOVorderinlongersentences,wemayfinditharderto

followthesense:

Whatfeastistowardinthineeternalcell,

Thatthousomanyprincesatashot

Sobloodilyhaststruck? (Hamlet5.2.370‐2)

Here,amoreusualorderwouldbe,‘thatS(thou)V(haststruck)O(somany

princes)atashot’.

ThistendencyinShakespeareisusefultoknowaboutifwearetryingto

understandwhywe‐orperhapsstudentsweareteaching‐haveproblems

followingShakespeare’smeaning.Itwillbecomeevenmoreinterestinghowever,

iffutureresearchconfirmsHouston’sclaim,thatShakespeareusesSOVword

orderfarmorefrequentlythanhiscontemporaries‐andthattherateatwhich

heusesitincreasesoverhiscareer.Recentlinguisticworkonothersyntactic

featureshasconfirmedthefrequentliterary‐criticalobservationthat

Shakespeare’slatestyleismorecomplexsyntacticallythanhisearlyone:

perhapsHoustonhasidentifiedakeycharacteristicofShakespeare’slanguage‐

onethatreallydoessethimoutfromhiscontemporaries.

Conclusion

ManyhavefeltthatShakespeare’slanguagemustholdthekeytohisgenius‐but

analysisofhislinguisticpracticehaslaggedbehindalmosteveryotherpartof

Shakespearescholarship.PerhapsthisisbecauseShakespeare’slanguagecan

onlybeseriouslystudiedinrelationtowhatothersweredoingatthetime:ifwe

wanttomakeaclaimaboutShakespeare’svocabulary,wemustalsoknowabout

Middleton’s;andyettheeffectoftheShakespeare‘myth’hasbeentotake

Shakespeareoutofhistory,anddivorcethestudyofhisworkfromthestudyof

‘lesser’contemporarywriters.Thisisanexcitingtimeinthestudyof

Shakespeare’slanguagehowever:digitaltechnologywillsoonmakeitpossible

forindividualscholarstosearchandcomparethecompletecorpusofEarly

Modernprintedtextsontheirlaptops.WewillbeabletoputShakespeareback

intohistory.12

Footnotes

1 BenJonson,‘Tothememoryofmybeloved,theauthorMasterWilliam

Shakespeare’‐dedicatoryversetothe1623FirstFolioofShakespeare,line142.

2 SeeGrahamHolderness(ed.),1988,TheShakespeareMyth(Manchester,

ManchesterUniversityPress);TerrenceHawkes,1992,MeaningbyShakespeare

(London,Routledge);MichaelDobson,1995,TheMakingoftheNationalPoet

(Oxford,ClarendonPress).

3 Manyoftheideasinthisessayarediscussedinfullerforminmy2010

book,ShakespeareandLanguage:Reason,EloquenceandArtificeinthe

Renaissance(Arden).

4 MelvynBragg,2003,TheAdventureofEnglish(HodderandStoughton),

page144.

5 JürgenSchäfer,1980,DocumentationintheO.E.D.:ShakespeareandNashe

asTestCases(Oxford,ClarendonPress).

6 Terttu Nevalainen, 1999, ‘Early Modern English lexis and semantics’, in

Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language: volume III 1476-

1776 (CUP), pp. 332-458.

7 Marvin Spevack, 1985, ‘Shakespeare’s language’, in John F. Andrews (ed.),

William Shakespeare: his world, his work, his influence (3 vols), (Charles Scribner’s

Sons: New York), vol. 2, pp. 343-61.

8 See, for example David Crystal, 2008, Think on my Words: Exploring

Shakespeare’s Language (CUP), p. 6, which makes this ‘largeness’ claim even while

debunking other language myths about Shakespeare.

9 Forafulldiscussionoftheseissues,seeHughCraig,forthcoming,

‘Shakespeare’svocabulary:mythandreality’,ShakespeareQuarterly;andWard

E.Y.ElliottandRobertJ.Valenza,2011,‘Shakespeare’svocabulary:diditdwarf

allothers?’,inMireilleRavassatandJonathanCulpepper(eds),Stylisticsand

Shakespeare’sLanguage:TransdisciplinaryApproaches(Continuum).

10 AllthreestrikersplayedforNewcastleUnited:Milburn1943‐57;

Macdonald1971‐76;Shearer1996‐2006.Figuresaretakenfrom

http://www.nufc.com/2010‐11html/players.html[accessed31.8.2010]

11 John Porter Houston, 1988, Shakespeare’s Sentences: a study in style and

syntax (Baton Rouge and London, Louisiana State University Press), especially

chapter 1.

12 ForintroductionstoShakespeare’slanguage,seeLynneMagnusson,

forthcoming(2011),‘Language’inArthurKinney(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookto

Shakespeare(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),paginationunknown;Jonathan

Hope,2010,'Shakespeareandlanguage',inMargretadeGraziaandStanleyWells

(eds),TheNewCambridgeCompaniontoShakespeare(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress),pp.77‐90.Forahintofthedigitalfuture,seeJonathanHope

andMichaelWitmore,2010‘Thehundredthpsalmtothetuneof“GreenSleeves”:

DigitalApproachestotheLanguageofGenre’,ShakespeareQuarterlyvol,61,no.

3(Fall2010),pp.357‐90.