Scarica Riassunto D. Crystal, Think on my words e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
DAVID CRYSTAL, THINK ON MY WORDS (2008)
This book is an exploration of Shakespeare’s language which poses a central question about it: “what does it [Shakespeare’s language] do?”. And “what does it do?” means two things: how does it help us understand the meaning of what is said ( semantics ), and how does it help us appreciate the dramatic or poetic effect of what is said ( pragmatics ).
Chapter 1: Myths and realities
Speech never stands still, instead it is in a state of constant change. Shakespeare himself refers at one point to language change taking place within a single generation. In Romeo and Juliet (1595), Mercutio describes the way Tybalt speaks calling him one the “new tuners of accent”.
The quantity myth
Shakespeare certainly had a wide-ranging vocabulary for his time, but probably not the largest of any English writer. The reason is the way English vocabulary has grown over the past 400 years. The usual figure given for the size of Shakespeare’s vocabulary is about 20,000 different words. Today we have over twice as many words at our command. It is not so much the number of words we have as what we do with those words that makes the different between an ordinary and a brilliant use of language. What Shakespeare shows us is how to be daring with language. It should be noted that those who consider the number of words amounting to 20,000 in the Bard’s vocabulary are grouping all the variants together (e.g. ask a sks, asking, asked, etc. ). If we count the variants separately the number reaches over 30,000 words. There are five types of difficulty in deciding what to count:
- We have to decide whether a word is a compound (‘parola composta’, usually indicated with a hyphen) or not;
- Do we include all the variants between Folio and Quarto texts?
- Do we include proper names?
- Do we include foreign words?
- Do we include onomatopoeic ‘words’ (as when Edgar shouts “sesey”, a hunting cry, in King Lear );
- Do we include humorous forms, such as malapropisms (= the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one, often with an amusing effect). Still, 20,000 was a large vocabulary, in its day. Shakespeare’s vocabulary is so large partly because he wrote so much, but mainly because of what he wrote about. It is the difference between people, situations, and subject-matter which generates different kinds of vocabulary.
The invention myth
Another linguistic myth about Shakespeare is that he invented a great part of the words in the English language. In earlier periods, the only evidence we have to go on are the surviving texts, and no one has yet found an earlier use of the word ‘trippingly’ than when Oberon uses it in Midsummer’s Night Dream. But to say that the first recorded user actually invented the word is to take a leap into the dark. Shakespeare is in fact the first person we know to have written it down, but lexicography has its limitations. The fact is, Shakespeare was a special target of the first OED ( Oxford English Dictionary ) editors. As a result, there are rather more usages attributed to him than might have been the case if some of his contemporaries had been given the same treatment. There’s a huge difference between ‘inventing a word’ and ‘introducing a word into the language’.
Also, it is important not to overrate what Shakespeare was doing in his time. The age in which he wrote (the Early Modern period) was one of the most lexically inventive periods in the history of the language. And as there was no dictionary in which these new words could be recorded – the first attempt at an English dictionary was not until Robert Cawdrey’s short Table Alphabeticall in 1604 – writers invented anew, in most cases unaware that someone else might have attempted the word before them.
The translation myth
Many claims have been made about the supposed difficulty of Shakespeare’s language and the need to translate, or better ‘simplify’ his works. First of all, a distinction has to be drawn between difficulty of language and difficulty of thought. As far as language is concerned, the two mainly cited factors are grammar and vocabulary. Yet, only some 10 per cent of Shakespeare’s grammar is likely to cause a comprehension problem and, as for vocabulary, the question is how many of these different words pose a serious difficulty of interpretation. First, there are words which are totally opaque. Second, there are words which look easy but can be deceptive (‘false friends’). Then, there’s an intermediate category (around 2, words) in which context is sufficiently clear to enable the reader to guess the word’s meaning. In addition to this, there are cases where the effect of the word on the listener is more important than its actual meaning: it is the pragmatic force of the expression that matters, not its semantic content, and this is what actors effectively convey on stage.
The style myth
[By style we mean the set of linguistic features that, taken together, uniquely identify a language user]. Style varies on two dimensions: diachronically, over time in a writer’s career; and synchronically, at one point in time, when the writer has to adapt his/her style to a specific subject matter. In Shakespeare’s case, his career was so long and the range of literary genres he covered so high, we must expect stylistic variation. There are thousands of options available when speaking of style: Vocabulary ( semantics ); Sentence structure ( grammar ); Sounds ( graphology and phonology ); Ways of interacting (e.g. ‘thou’ and ‘you’, a variable in pragmatics ). Of course, firm statements about style may be elusive, but careful analysis can still identify stylistic preferences (e.g. ‘in the midst of’ could be used both with and without the definite article in the 16 th century. Whereas poets such as Spenser used both variants, Shakespeare only uses ‘in the midst of’, so that a writing containing a variant without the article is most probably not by Shakespeare). Overall, given the range of content in Shakespeare, valid stylistic generalizations are likely to be impossible or at least uninformative.
Old and new words
Shakespeare’s period of the language is not homogeneous. We may refer to the older usages as ‘obsolete words’ (or archaisms; e.g. ‘iwis’ = indeed), the new usages as ‘coinages’ (or neologisms; e.g. ‘very’ as an intensifying word with a positive adjective).
Coinages
People sometimes say they can always spot a Shakespearean coinage on sight, but we can be easily deceived. Vnhouzzled, disappointed, vnnaneld, [= unhouseled … unanealed] whereas ‘unaneled’ is a neologism, ‘unhouseled’ is not. ‘Disappointed’, which some may disregard, is. Even more difficult is the spotting of a neologistic sense in a familiar word e.g. ‘angel’: in its sense of ‘divine messenger’, this is Anglo-Saxon in origin. But in the sense of ‘lovely being’, the OED ’s first citation is in fact Romeo’s reaction on hearing Juliet’s first words. One of the most important features of Shakespeare’s word-creation is its exploratory character. For example, from the verb “annex” he derived both “annexment” and “annexion”.
Clusters
Coinages by their nature are sporadic. If an author uses too many, the language may become too unfamiliar. Yet, as we explore the way Shakespeare introduces his new words, we find them often appearing in clusters of two or three. For instance, in Hamlet, we find Polonius breaking out into two neologistic images in quick succession: ‘investments’ and ‘implorators’. | Troilus and Cressida is the play with the most coinages in it. Several well-established words are being used in new senses as well: o ‘Proposition’ is used by Shakespeare for the first time in the sense of ‘offer’; o ‘design’ in the sense of ‘aim’ or ‘intention’; o ‘disaster’ meaning ‘inauspicious sight’; o ‘divert’ in the sense of ‘turn awry’ (= nel verso sbagliato).
Repetitions
When authors consciously create words that they consider to be particularly apt, we can easily understand them wanting to use them a second time. It is therefore interesting to see Shakespeare sometimes using a coinage twice in fairly quick succession, and then never again. Example: ‘Icony’ (probably relating to ‘cony’, ‘rabbit’) pronounced ‘cunny’, rhyming with ‘money’, an indecent association, is used twice in Love’s Labour’s Lost and never again.
Signposts
When Shakespeare’s coinages are examined together, interesting patterns emerge. His use of the prefix un- for example, is illustrative. There are 314 instances in the OED where he is the first citation for an un- word. Here are some examples: Richard II : uncurse, undeaf, undeck, unhappy; Hamlet : uncharge, unhand, unmask, unpeg;
Troilus : unlock, untent, untie, unveil; Macbeth : unbend, unfix, unmake, unprovoke, unspeak, unsex.
Collocations
Poets generally love to break normal collocational rules and Shakespeare is one of the greatest rule- breakers. Example: ‘time’ is personified in different ways. We find time untangling, reviving, sowing, blessing, conspiring, brawling, begetting, weeping, inviting, unfolding, ministering, expiring, etc. Collocations are especially interesting when they relate to a word which is itself a neologism, such as ‘auspicious’.
Perspective
‘tis and thou/thee/thy still have resonance today: ‘tis may look strange in writing, but it is common in modern English colloquial speech; Thou/thee/thy are forms still encountered in some religious and regional expression. In sum, a modern intuition encountering some of Shakespeare’s dialogues would understand them without special help. Also, whenever difficult words are encountered in a speech, it is often the following part that clarifies the author’s intention.
periphrastically ( less interesting, least interesting ). This system had been established by Shakespeare’s time, but it had not finished developing yet. This is why we find occasional usages of ‘double comparatives’ such as more great, and ‘double superlatives’ (e.g. most bravest ) to convey a more emphatic effect. There are also a few occasions when word-order is different: “And a good Lady, and a wise, and vertuous” = “She is a good, wise, and virtuous lady”.
Verbs
Most of the distinctive features of Shakespearean verb usage relate to tenses. Great changes in the system had taken place during the Middle English period, but by Shakespeare’s day it had largely settled down, and was not far from the one we know today. The most noticeable differences are the two verb-ending which were still being uses:
- est for the second-person singular following thou ( thou goest, thou know’st );
- th or - eth for the third-person singular ( she goeth, she hath );
- to be also incluced four older items: art, beest, wert, wast. We can actually see the change in the language taking place if we order Shakespeare’s plays chronologically. As we proceed, we see different forms used mainly because of metrical constraints. The overall impression of difference is not great: o some verbs are irregular in Shakespeare which have become regular today, e.g. durst = dared, holp = helped; o some verbs are regular in Shakespeare which have become irregular today, e.g. digged = dug, shaked = shook/shaken ; o some irregular Shakespeare verbs stay irregular, but in a different way, e.g. was awaked = awoken, brake = broke.
Pronouns
- The thou -forms are thou, thee, thy, thine , and thy selfe. The you -forms are you, ye, your, yours , and your selfe.
- Itselfe and themselues are always printed solid; my selfe is usually spaced; her selfe is also spaced; himselfe is usually solid.
- You -forms are more frequent than thou -forms (in a ratio of 3:2). The forms for thou and you (abbreviated to T-/V -forms, after the tu/vous distinction in French) are important markers of social differences. In Old English, thou was singular and you was plural. But during the 13 th^ century, you began to be used as a polite form of the singular. English then became like French, which has tu and vous both possible for singulars. The usual thing was for you to be used by inferiors to superiors, and thou to be used in return. People would also use thou when they wanted special intimacy and was also normal when the lower classes talked to each other. The upper classes used you to each other, as a rule. – The way in which characters switch from one pronoun to the other therefore acts as a barometer of their evolving attitudes and relationships. Example: in King Lear , if thou is for ‘ordinary’ daughters, you must be a special marker of affection when addressing Cordelia. Yet, when she doesn’t reply in the way Lear was expecting (“Nothing”), he abruptly changes back: “But goes thy heart with this?”
With such dominance of you , any use still made of ye most probably is for stylistic factors. Also, situational informality plays a part, as well as grammatical factors (for instance, it is likely to be used in vocatives such as “ye people”). – It should be noted that some plays of Shakespeare are actually collaborations. For example, John Fletcher was presumably responsible for a relatively huge usage in Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen. As for the system of relative pronouns ( who, that, which ), it was in a somewhat unstable state; this is the reason who is occasionally used after a non-human noun. Ethical dative in Early Modern English allowed a personal pronoun after a verb to express such notions as ‘to’, ‘for’, ‘by’, ‘with’ or ‘from’ “But heare me this” = “But hear this from me”.
Word order
Most of the really unfamiliar deviations from Modern English grammatical norms which we encounter in Shakespeare arise in his verse, where he bends the construction to suit the demands of the metre. The more the metre forces grammatical deviations within a line, the more difficult the line will be to understand. Still, if just one element of clause structure is affected, the problem is small: “Ore Ladies lips, who strait on kisses dreame (= dream on kisses) it’s not difficult to which oft the angry Mab with blisters plagues (= plagues with blisters) understand and it is a because their breath with Sweet meats tainted are (= are tainted)”. phenomenon still encountered today. Only by paying careful attention to the meaning can we work things out and see it in tis discourse context. Metrical choices always have grammatical, semantic, pragmatic and dramatic consequences.
For example, when Fluellen (in Henry V ) and Evans (in The Merry Wives of Windsor ) are talking, utterances such as “how melancholies I am” are not normal Early Modern English, but a humorous representation of Welsh dialect speech. Other examples are pless = bless, falorous = valorous, and the famous stereotype of Welsh speech, “ look you”. But regional variation is not as strongly represented in Shakespeare as social variation, especially distinctions in class. People may hide their faces nut not their voices. Orlando encountering disguised Rosalind in the forest in As You Like It , notices her speech: “Your accent is something finer, then you could purchase in so remoued a dwelling”. Many of the markers of class difference are to be found in the way people address each other (titles, insults, etc.). Such forms as s irrah, wench, master , and gentle are an index of personal temparents.
A legal example
Legal English is the result of a large number of phonological (in speech), graphological (in writing), grammatical, and lexical conventions which combine to make the spoken or written discourses we recognize as depositions, statements, contracts, acts, deeds, and so on. When these varieties are used in literature, to present characters or situations, only some of these conventions are used. Shakespeare’s mastery of legal terminology is one of the main features of his writing. But what is stylistically important is to note that the use of legal vocabulary extends well beyond the courtroom.
