Cover not available
Part of
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. 31–46

Chapter 3
Keywords that characterise Shakespeare’s (anti)heroes and villains

| Manchester Metropolitan University
| Lancaster University
This chapter undertakes a keyword analysis of seven Shakespearean characters: Titus, Tamora, Aaron, Lear, Edmund, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. The chapter discusses how, once contextualised, these keywords provide useful insights into their feelings/thoughts towards others, events, motivations to act, etc. In terms of findings, only Aaron denotes his “villainy” directly. Tamora, in contrast, draws upon a keyword that is denotatively positive; in context, though, “sweet” reveals her womanly wiles. “Weep”, for Lear, and “legitimate” and “base”, for Edmund, problematize their status as (one-dimensional) villains. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth draw upon grammatical keywords, “if” and “would” in ways that signal something about their (deteriorating) emotional and social positions as much as their villainous intentions.
Keywords: context, keywords, log ratio, Shakespeare and villainy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Resource drawn upon
  • 4.Keyword approach adopted
  • 5.Keyword results for the seven characters
  • 6.Discussion of the Titus Andronicus characters
    • 6.1Aaron
    • 6.2Tamora
    • 6.3Titus
  • 7.Discussion of the King Lear characters
    • 7.1Lear
    • 7.2Edmund
  • 8.Discussion of the Macbeth characters
    • 8.1Macbeth
    • 8.2Lady Macbeth
  • 9.The seven Shakespearean characters: Hero, anti-hero or villain?
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.03arc
References (20)
References
Archer, D. & Bousfield, D. 2010. ‘See better, Lear’? See Lear better! A corpus-based pragma-stylistic investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear . In Language and Style, D. McIntyre & B. Busse (eds), 183–203. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer D. & Lansley, C. 2015. Public appeals, news interviews and crocodile tears: An argument for multi-channel analysis. Corpora 10(2): 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer, D., Culpeper, J. & Rayson, P. 2009. Love – “a familiar or a devil”? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In What’s in a Word-list? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, D. Archer (ed.), 137–158. Farnham: Ashgate. Google Scholar
Baron, A. & Rayson, P. 2008. VARD2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Presented at the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, 22 May 2008.
Bowers, F. T. [1959]2015. Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587–1642. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Busse, B. 2006. Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 150]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busse, U. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 106]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charney, M. 2012. Shakespeare’s Villains. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2002. Computers, language and characterisation: An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. In Conversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium [Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquee 15], U. Melander-Marttala, C. Ostman & M. Kytö (eds), 11–30. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet.Google Scholar
2009. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet . International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. General introduction. Encyclopedia of Shakespeare’s Language [Arden Shakespeare]. London: Bloomsbury.
Garside, R. & Smith, N. 1997. A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, R. Garside, G. Leech & A. McEnery (eds), 102–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. (ed.). 2000. Titus Andronicus. New York: Pelican Shakespeare.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd rev. ed. (nd). Oxford: OUP.
Pollard, T. 2017. Greek Tragic Women on Shakespearean Stages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quennell, P. & Johnson, H. 2013. Who’s Who in Shakespeare. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ray, R. 2007. William Shakespeare’s King Lear [Atlantic Critical Studies]. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Baron, A., Culpeper, J. & Smith, N. 2007. Tagging the bard: Evaluating the accuracy of a modern POS tagger on Early Modern English corpora. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference: CL2007, M. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston & P. Danielsson (eds). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Tassi, M. A. 2011. Women and Revenge in Shakespeare: Gender, Genre and Ethics. Selinsgrove PA: Susquehanna University Press.Google Scholar
White, J. S. 1997. “Is black so base a hue?” Shakespeare’s Aaron and the politics and poetics of race. College Language Association Journal 40: 336–366.Google Scholar