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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Shi, Xinyu & Libo Huang
2024. Literary metamorphosis: a corpus-assisted approach to characterisation in The Rouge of the North and “The Golden Cangue”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 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.