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. 47–62

Chapter 4
Revealing speech

Agentivity in Iago’s and Othello’s soliloquies

| Tampere University
In several of Shakespeare’s plays, soliloquies serve as a window into the speaker’s mind and a view of the world at the time of the soliloquy. The framework of analysis in this chapter is that of semantic roles, with the focus on the Agent. The author develops a view of the Agent based on a cluster of selected semantic features, and applies it to thematically linked soliloquies in Othello. Each subject in the set of soliloquies is considered with respect to its agentivity or lack of it on the basis of the nature of the predicate in question. Iago’s soliloquies are seen to be higher in agentivity than Othello’s, revealing Iago as a “doer” and Othello as someone being acted upon.
Keywords: agent, agentivity, Shakespeare’s soliloquies, Shakespeare’s Othello , Iago in Othello
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The analytic framework: Agentivity and the Agent role
  • 3.Analysis of selected soliloquies by Iago and Othello
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 05 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.04rud
References
Allen, M. J. B. & Muir, K.
(eds) 1981 Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from the Henry E. Huntington Library. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Beckerman, B.
1962 Shakespeare at the Globe. 1599–1609. New York NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Berman, A.
1970 Agent, experiencer, and controllability. In Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation [Report NSF–24], S. Kuno (ed.), 203–237. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bradley, A. C.
[1904]2007 Shakespearean Tragedy, 4th edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clemen, W.
1964 Shakespeare’s Soliloquies [The presidential address of the Modern Humanities Research Association]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1987 Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cook, W. S. J.
1989 Case Grammar Theory. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, E. A.
1973 Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9(1): 11–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A.
2004 Agency in language. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, A. Duranti (ed.), 451–474. New York NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis-Fermor, U.
1948 The Frontiers of Drama. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Evans, G. B.
(ed.) 1974 The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston MA: Houghton and Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1968 The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fowler, R.
1977 Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gentens, C. & Rudanko, J.
2019 The great complement shift and the role of understood subjects. Folia Linguistica 53: 51–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gingrich, M. C.
1978 Soliloquies, Asides, and Audience in English Renaissance Drama. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Gruber, J. S.
1967 Look and see. Language 43(4): 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1976 Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hinman, C.
1968 The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. New York NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J.
2003 Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Honigman, E. A. J.
(ed.) [1997]2016 The Arden Shakespeare: Othello. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M.
2004 Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, S. S.
1982 The Literary Language of Shakespeare. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
[1940]1961 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V: Syntax (Vol. 4). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1977 Linguistic gestalts. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds), 236–287. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Landau, I.
2013 Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muir, K.
1964 Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Ocidente LXVII: 45–58.Google Scholar
Nuttall, L.
2018 Mind Style and Cognitive Grammar: Language and World View in Speculative Fiction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.
1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vol. 4, 157-190. Berkeley CA: BLS. Google Scholar
Postal, P.
1970 On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 439–500.Google Scholar
Rudanko, J.
1989 Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
1993 Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
2017 Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skiffington, L.
1985 The History of English Soliloquy: Aeschylus to Shakespeare. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Sprague, A. C.
1935 Shakespeare and the Audience: A Study in the Technique of Exposition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Styan, J. L.
[1967]1988 Shakespeare’s Stagecraft. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
2003 Meaning and context. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 243], H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (eds), 27–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, J.
1984 The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. PhD dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.
Wanner, A.
2009 Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T.
1977 Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax, P. E. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds), 327–360. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Tabbert, Ulrike & Juhani Rudanko
2021. Aspects of Characterisation in James Hadley Chase's Crime Fiction: Multiple Perspectives. English Studies 102:3 ► pp. 362 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2021. 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.