Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus
Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns
| Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg
This study investigates the morpho-syntactic variability of the second person pronouns in the Shakespeare Corpus, seeking to elucidate the factors that underlie their choice. The major part of the work is devoted to analyzing the variation between you and thou, but it also includes chapters that deal with the variation between thy and thine and between ye and you. Methodologically, the study makes use of descriptive statistics, but incorporates both quantitative and qualitative features, drawing in particular on research methods recently developed within the fields of corpus linguistics, socio-historical linguistics and historical pragmatics. By making comparisons to other corpora on Early Modern English the work does not only contribute to Shakespeare studies, but on a broader scale also to language change by providing new and more detailed insights into the mechanisms that have led to a restructuring of the pronoun paradigm in the Early Modern period.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 106] 2002. xiv, 344 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Preface and acknowledgements
|
xi
|
|
Abbreviations
|
xiii
|
|
1. General introduction
|
1–13
|
|
2. Previous research on the use of personal pronouns in Early Modern English with special reference to Shakespeare’s plays
|
15–36
|
|
3. Thou and you
: A quantitative analysis
|
37–61
|
|
4. The distribution of thou and you and their variants in verse and prose
|
63–81
|
|
5. “A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted / Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion”: Address pronouns in Shakespeare’s Sonnets and other Elizabethan poetry
|
83–98
|
|
6. “You beastly knave, know you no reverence?”: The co-occurrence of second person pronouns and nominal forms of address
|
99–186
|
|
7. “Prithee no more” vs. “Pray you, chuck, come hither”:
Prithee and pray you as discourse markers
|
187–212
|
|
8. The role of grammar in the selection of thou or you
|
213–221
|
|
9. “In thine own person answer thy abuse”: The use of thy vs. thine
|
223–248
|
|
10. “Stand, sir, and throw us that you have about ye”: The syntactic, pragmatic and social implications of the pronoun ye
|
249–281
|
|
11. Summary and conclusion
|
283–292
|
|
Appendix: Mitchell’s Corpus of British Drama (1580–1780)
|
293–295
|
|
Notes
|
297–310
|
|
References
|
311–331
|
|
Name index
|
333–335
|
|
Subject index
|
337–339
|
“B's book is a welcome contribution to the study of the history of second person pronouns in English, emphasizing the centrality of the Shakespearean canon in this connection.”
Juhani Rudanko, University of Tampere, in Language, Vol. 82:1 (2006)
“This book contains a wealth of material which should be invaluable to all those interested in Shakespeare.”
N.F. Blake, Sheffield, in Archive für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Band 241:2 (2004)
“Overall, I think the book is important as it informs our knowledge of Shakespeare's language. Furthermore, since Busse compares his findings in the Shakespeare corpus to other Early Modern English corpora, the study carries import for our understanding of the history of English more generally. Busse's presentation proceeds logically and his claims are well supported by the data he presents. One of the most beneficial aspects of Busse's work is that it provides the reader with a lot of material that could lead to further research or prove useful for in-progress studies among individual researchers.
”
K. Aaron Smith, Illinois State University in Linguist List (April 2003)
Cited by
Cited by other publications
No author info given
2018.
In Socioeconomic Pragmatic Variation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 291],
Aalberse, Suzanne
2005. Irma Taavitsainen u. Andreas H. Jucker (Hg.), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems.
Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 127:2 ► pp. 261 ff.
Archer, Dawn & Alison Findlay
2020.
In Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 97],
► pp. 32 ff.
Baicchi, Annalisa, Roberta Facchinetti, Silvia Cacchiani & Antonio Bertacca
2018. Shakespeare’s language revisited in the 21st century.
English Text Construction 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Bartali, Valentina
2020. Andreas H. Jucker: Review of “Politeness in the History of English: From the Middle Ages to the Present Day”.
Corpus Pragmatics 4:4 ► pp. 485 ff.
Brinton, Laurel J.
2015.
In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis,
► pp. 222 ff.
Busse, Ulrich
2007. Review of Blake (2002): A Grammar of Shakespeare’s Language & Hope (2003): Shakespeare’s Grammar.
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8:1 ► pp. 127 ff.
Hardie, Andrew & Isolde van Dorst
2020. A survey of grammatical variability in Early Modern English drama.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:3 ► pp. 275 ff.
Hays, Christopher B.
2019.
In The Origins of Isaiah 24–27,
Hirt, Raffael
2018. “Is Not Thy Soul Thine Own?”: An Analysis of Second-Person Pronouns in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta.
English Studies 99:3 ► pp. 243 ff.
Jucker, A.H.
2006.
In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,
► pp. 329 ff.
Jucker, Andreas
2020.
In Politeness in the History of English,
Jucker, Andreas H
2003.
In Contrastive Analysis in Language,
► pp. 197 ff.
Jucker, Andreas H.
2006.
In Handbook of Pragmatics,
► pp. 1 ff.
Jucker, Andreas H. & Joanna Kopaczyk
2017.
In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness,
► pp. 433 ff.
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen
2012.
In The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics,
► pp. 293 ff.
Keller, Stefan D.
2010. Combining Rhetoric and Pragmatics to ReadOthello.
English Studies 91:4 ► pp. 398 ff.
Mele-Marrero, Margarita & Francisco Alonso-Almeida
2011. The Role of the Pronounsheandshein Seventeenth-Century Obstetric Directives*.
Studia Neophilologica 83:2 ► pp. 169 ff.
Murphy, Sean, Dawn Archer & Jane Demmen
2020. Mapping the links between gender, status and genre in Shakespeare’s plays.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:3 ► pp. 223 ff.
Nevala, Minna
2004. Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence.
Journal of Pragmatics 36:12 ► pp. 2125 ff.
Rudanko, Juhani
2005. On the Form and Function of Epithets in Shakespeare'sCoriolanus.
Studia Neophilologica 77:1 ► pp. 11 ff.
Sato, Kiriko
2019. The Choice of Relative Pronouns
in the First Quarto and First Folio Texts
of Shakespeare’s Richard III: Testing the Memorial Reconstruction Hypothesis.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies :28/2 ► pp. 63 ff.
Sato, Kiriko
2019. The Relative Which with Personal Antecedents in Shakespeare’s History Plays.
Neophilologus 103:2 ► pp. 273 ff.
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 :2 ► pp. 9 ff.
Sivonen, Jari
2016. The Finnish abstract motion construction mennä V-mA-An [go V-inf-ill] ‘do something unwished’.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Sönmez, Margaret J-M
2005. A study of request markers in english family letters from 1623 to 1660.
European Journal of English Studies 9:1 ► pp. 9 ff.
WILLIAMS, LAWRENCE & RÉMI A. VAN COMPERNOLLE
2009. Second-person pronoun use in French language discussion fora.
Journal of French Language Studies 19:3 ► pp. 363 ff.
Zhan, Hongwei
2015. Review of Hilpert (2013): Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 257 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 november 2020. 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.
Subjects
Linguistics
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General