Chapter 4
Revealing speech
Agentivity in Iago’s and Othello’s soliloquies
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.
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
References (44)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beckerman, B.
1962 Shakespeare at the Globe. 1599–1609. New York NY: The Macmillan Company.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bradley, A. C.
[1904]2007 Shakespearean Tragedy, 4th edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York NY: Praeger.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clemen, W.
1964 Shakespeare’s Soliloquies [
The presidential address of the Modern Humanities Research Association]. Cambridge: CUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clemen, W.
1987 Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. London: Methuen.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, W. S. J.
1989 Case Grammar Theory. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruse, E. A.
1973 Some thoughts on agentivity.
Journal of Linguistics 9(1): 11–23.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, D.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.
Language 67(3): 547–619.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Duranti, A.
2004 Agency in language. In
A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology,
A. Duranti (ed.), 451–474. New York NY: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis-Fermor, U.
1948 The Frontiers of Drama. London: Methuen.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, G. B.
(ed.) 1974 The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston MA: Houghton and Mifflin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fowler, R.
1977 Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gentens, C. & Rudanko, J.
2019 The great complement shift and the role of understood subjects.
Folia Linguistica 53: 51–87.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, J. S.
1976 Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hinman, C.
1968 The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. New York NY: W.W. Norton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hirsch, J.
2003 Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Honigman, E. A. J.
(ed.) [1997]2016 The Arden Shakespeare: Othello. London: Bloomsbury.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hundt, M.
2004 Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English.
English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hussey, S. S.
1982 The Literary Language of Shakespeare. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R.
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O.
[1940]1961 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V: Syntax (Vol. 4). London: Allen and Unwin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, I.
2013 Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: CUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marantz, A.
1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muir, K.
1964 Shakespeare’s soliloquies.
Ocidente LXVII: 45–58.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nuttall, L.
2018 Mind Style and Cognitive Grammar: Language and World View in Speculative Fiction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Postal, P.
1970 On coreferential complement subject deletion.
Linguistic Inquiry 1: 439–500.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rudanko, J.
1989 Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rudanko, J.
1993 Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare. Lanham MD: University Press of America.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rudanko, J.
2017 Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Skiffington, L.
1985 The History of English Soliloquy: Aeschylus to Shakespeare. Lanham: University Press of America.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sprague, A. C.
1935 Shakespeare and the Audience: A Study in the Technique of Exposition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Styan, J. L.
[1967]1988 Shakespeare’s Stagecraft. Cambridge: CUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
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.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.