Cover not available
Article published In:
Revisiting Shakespeare's Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi, Roberta Facchinetti, Silvia Cacchiani and Antonio Bertacca
[English Text Construction 11:1] 2018
► pp. 141–168

The cognitive potential of antithesis

‘To be, or not to be’ in Hamlet’s signature soliloquy

| Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University | Tomas Bata University
| Masaryk University

This paper investigates the working of antithesis in Shakespeare’s most famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be” and its three Ukrainian translations. In cognitive poetics, antithesis is often viewed as a verbal variety of conceptual oxymoron. However, this paper argues for distinguishing antithesis from conceptual oxymoron based on consideration of the different processes at work behind their creation and reading. Significantly, in antithesis the emergent meaning retains the dichotomy of two input spaces rather than creating a new one, as happens in conceptual oxymoron. In this context, we consider antithesis in English-Ukrainian translations against the backdrop of Kaluża’s (1984) reflection on asymmetry and irreversibility in antithesis. As will be seen, renditions into Ukrainian change the perception of the original antithesis prompted by structural and semantic changes in the translations.

Keywords: antithesis, blend, conceptual oxymoron, mapping, parallel texts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual oxymoron
  • 3.How conceptual is antithesis?
  • 4.Choice of materials and methods
  • 5.Antitheses in Hamlet’s soliloquy “To be or not to be” and its Ukrainian renditions
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00007.shu
References

References

Akademichnyj tlumachnyj slovnyk
1970–1980 [Academic Ukrainian Dictionary]. [URL] (Last accessed on 13 August 2017).
Baars, Bernard J.
1988 A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, Louise
2011 Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belekhova, Larysa
2002 Obraznyj prostir amerykans’koї poeziї: lingvokognityvnyj aspekt [Image space of American poetry: Linguocognitive perspective]. DSc Dissertation. Kyiv National Linguistics University.Google Scholar
2006 Kontseptualnyj oksymoron: kreatyvnyj mekhanizm formuvannia novyzny slovesnykh obraziv (na materiali amerykanskoї poeziї) [Conceptual oxymoron: creative mechanism of making verbal images novel (based on American poetry)]. Naukovyj visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu: Seriia “Lingvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald: Linguistics Series]. [URL] (Last accessed on 22 July 2017).
Boyce, Charles
1990 Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. New York: Laurel / Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
Brône, Geert & Jeroen Vandaele
(eds) 2009 Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornelius, Judson K.
2005 [1998] Literary Humour. Bandra: Better Yourself Books.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
2012 Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. In Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbow, Peter
1993 The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition (141): 22–51. [URL] (Last accessed on 8 January 2018).
Estes, Zachary & Thomas B. Ward
2002 The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal 14 (2): 149–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyv
2007 A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982 Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M.
1997 Iconicity in language and literature: Language innovation and language change. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 981: 63–87. [URL] (Last accessed on 13 August 2017).
Franke, Michael
2008 Pseudo-imperatives and other cases of conditional conjunction and conjunctive disjunction. In ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’. In Sentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 255–280.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
1993 Process and products in making sense of tropes. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
2009 [1989] Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New York and London: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva
2017 Theme. In The Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Linguistics. [URL] (Last accessed on 13 August 2017). DOI logo
Harrison, Chloe
2017 Cognitive Grammar in Contemporary Fiction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan
(eds) 2014 Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horpynych, Volodymyr
2004 Morfolohiia ukraїnskoї movy [Ukrainian Language Morphology]. Kyiv: Akademiia.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura
2007 Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language 31 (3): 607–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvie, Gordon
2007 Bloomsbury Grammar Guide: Grammar Made Easy. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
Kaluża, Irena
1984 Antithesis – a linguistic approach. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 171: 101–114.Google Scholar
Kolomiiets, Lada V.
2006 Dva Leonidy Hrebinky: Do pytannia pro avtentychnyj pereklad i redaktorsku pravku (na materiali perekladu ‘Hamleta’ V. Shekspira) [Two Grebinkas: On authentic translation and editor’s changes (based on W. Shakespeare’s Hamlet)]. Inozemna lologija [Foreign Philology] 401: 31–5.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
2003 Metaphor and semantics. In International Encyclopedia of Linguisitcs: AAVE-Esperanto. Vol. 11. New York: Oxford University Press, 53–54.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
2003 [1980] Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
2007 Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 139–169.Google Scholar
Lu, Wei-lun & Arie Verhagen
2016 Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, Barbara Dancygier, Wei-Lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Wei-lun, Susanne Kemmer, Svitlana Shurma & Jiří Rambousek
Under review. Use of translation as a research method in contrastive cognitive poetics: Word formation in Jabberwocky and its Ukrainian translations. Submitted to: Journal of Literary Semantics.
Lu, Wei-lun, Arie Verhagen & I-wen Su
2018 A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach for viewpoint research across languages: The case of demonstratives in English and Chinese. In Expressive Minds and Artistic Creations: Studies in Cognitive Poetics, Szilvia Csábi (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131–158.Google Scholar
Newell, Alex
1965 The dramatic context and meaning of Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. PMLA 80 (1): 38–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plett, Heinrich F.
2010 International Studies in the History of Rhetoric. Vol. 2. Literary Rhetoric: Concepts – Structures – Analyses. Leiden and Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponomariv, Oleksander
2014 Blog profesora Ponomareva: pro riznytsiu mizh “chy” ta “abo” [Professor Ponomariv’s blog: on the difference between “chy” and “abo”]. [URL] (Last accessed on 13 August 2017).
Preminger, Alex & Terry V. F. Brogan
(eds) 1993 The New Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ramshaw, Gail
1996 Liturgical Language: Keeping it Metaphoric, Making it Inclusive. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
Ross, George
. s.d. [1867] Studies: Biographical and Literary. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2000 English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena, Zsofia Demjén & Jane E. Demmen
2016 An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William
1986 Hamlet, prynts datskyj. Tr. by L. Hrebinka. In V. Shekspir. Tvory v shesty tomah [Works in Six Volumes]. Vol. 51. Kyiv: Dnipro, 5–118.Google Scholar
2004 Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by G. Kochur. In U. Shekspir. Tragediї [Tragedies]. Kharkiv: Folio, 165–310.Google Scholar
2008 Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by Yu. Andrukhovych. Kyiv: A-BA-BA-GA-LA-MA-GA.Google Scholar
. (upd. 2008) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. [URL] (Last accessed on 31 July 2017).
. (upd. 2018) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. [URL] (Last accessed on 21 August 2017).
Shen, Yeshayahu
1997 Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (1): 33–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Cognitive constraints on verbal creativity: The use of figurative language in poetic discourse. In Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Elena Semino & Jonathan Culpeper (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shulzhuk, Kalenyk
2004 Syntaksys ukraїnskoї movy [Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Akademiia.Google Scholar
Shurma, Svitlana & Wei-Lun Lu
2016 A cognitive poetic analysis of LIFE and DEATH in English and Ukrainian: A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach to Hamlet’s soliloquy. Theatralia 19 (2): 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul
2004 Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skidan, Olga
2007 Kontrastyvni stylistychni zasoby vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u hudozhnikh tekstakh U.S. Moema [Contrastive stylistic means that embody the concept CREATIVE PERSONALITY in W.S. Maugham’s novels]. Abstract of PhD Dissertation. Karazin National University of Kharkiv.Google Scholar
2008 Hrotesk iak zasib vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u tvorakh U.S. Moema [Grotesque as a means of CREATIVE PERSONALITY concept embodiment in W.S. Maugham’s works]. Naukovyj Visnyk Khersonskogo derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriia: “Linhvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald. Linguistics series], 262–266. [URL] (Last accessed on 12 August 2017).
2010 Kohnityvnyj pidkhid do stylistychnoho analizu anglomovnogo hudozhnioho tekstu [Cognitive approach to stylistic analysis of English literary texts]. Sevastopol: Izdatelstvo SevNTU.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter
2002 Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Albert
1973 Word association and creativity. Psychological Reports 331: 3–12 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talanchuk, O.
2002 100 najvidomishykh obraziv ukraїnskoї mifolohiї [100 Most Famous Images of Ukrainian Mythology]. Kyiv: Orfej.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2005 [2003] Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsur, Reuven
1992 Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark
2014 Blending in language and communication. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 211–232. Online version available at [URL] (Last accessed on 20 July 2017).
Williamson, Claude C. H.
(ed.) 2005 [1950] Readings on the Character of Hamlet. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Shurma, Svitlana
2023. SETTING AN OPPOSITION: ANTITHESIS IN PROPAGANDA FOR 1960 UKRAINIAN SSR. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.