Chapter published in:
Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö
Edited by Ewa Jonsson and Tove Larsson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 97] 2020
► pp. 11–30

Chapter 2
Pragmatic noise in Shakespeare’s plays

| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
Pragmatic noise, first coined in Culpeper and Kytö (2010), refers to the semi-natural noises, such as ah, oh, and ha, that have evolved to express a range of pragmatic and discoursal functions. Taking advantage of the regularised spellings and grammatically tagged texts of the Enhanced Shakespearean Corpus (Culpeper 2019), this study considers the frequency, distribution and functions of pragmatic noise across Shakespeare’s plays and characters. It reveals and discusses, for example, the facts that: whilst particular types of pragmatic noise maintain a steady presence across all the plays, there is variation in token density; female characters have a much greater density of pragmatic noise tokens compared with male; and characters in the middle of the social hierarchy use pragmatic noise particularly often.
Keywords: characterisation, corpus-based methods, pragmatic noise, Shakespeare, social groups
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pragmatic noise
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1The Enhanced Shakespearean Corpus
    • 3.2A method for pragmatic noise extraction
  • 4.Distribution of pragmatic noise across Shakespeare’s plays
    • 4.1Overview of distribution by play
    • 4.2Discussion of distribution by play
  • 5.Distribution of pragmatic noise across Shakespeare’s social groups of characters
    • 5.1Overview of distribution by social groups
    • 5.2Discussion of distribution by social groups
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 05 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.02cul
References
Ameka, F.
1992 Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3): 101–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. & Culpeper, J.
2003 Sociopragmatic annotation: New directions and possibilities in historical corpus linguistics. In Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech [Łódź Studies in Language 8], A. Wilson, P. Rayson & T. McEnery (eds), 37–58. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bentley, T.
1582 The sixt lampe of virginitie conteining a mirrour for maidens and matrons […]. At the three cranes in the vintree, by Thomas Dawson and Henry Denham, for the assignes of William Seres. London. (STC 1894).Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Boas, F. S.
1910 Shakspere and his Predecessors. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. & Janney, R. W.
1994 Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22(3–4): 325–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J.
2019 Lead compiler of the Enhanced Shakespearean Corpus, part of the Encyclopedia of Shakespeare’s Language Project (AHRC grant reference AH/N002415/1). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M.
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gwalther, R. & Bridges, J.
1572 An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons [...]. By Henrie Denham, dwelling in Pater noster rowe, at the sign of the starre. London. (STC 25013).Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H.
2002 Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Alternative Histories of English, R. Watts & P. Trudgill (eds), 210–230. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Person, R. F.
2009 “Oh” in Shakespeare: A conversation analytic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(1): 84–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I.
1999 Personality and styles of affect in The Canterbury Tales . In Chaucer in Perspective: Middle English Essays in Honour of Norman Blake, G. Lester (ed.), 218–234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar