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. 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: 5 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.04rud
References (44)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

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.