Download Iconic Force of Rhetorical Figures in Shakespeare`s Drama

Document related concepts

Shakespeare's plays wikipedia , lookup

Sir Thomas More (play) wikipedia , lookup

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
(William Shakespeare in Romeo & Juliet,
A. Background
Literature is one of the cultural products that reflect on life and human
life through the medium of language, such as events, life experiences,
thoughts, feelings, ideas, passion, belief and norms of life, both in the form of
inspiration and imagination. It contains aspects of education, sharing
experiences and or entertainment for the benefit of its readers.
As a cultural product, literature can be seen from various dimensions;
forms, ideas, language, style, presentation techniques, structure, author,
process of creation, linguistic aspects and some other dimensions all of which
can be touched by the literary critic and literary researchers.
For linguists, literary studies are certainly tied to two important aspects
of authorical technique and stylistic features in the frame of linguitics. This
idea has been accepted by many scientists that is developed by Coulthard.
As proposed by Malcolm Coulthard, literature is the art form realized
entirely through language and, although evaluation and interpretation is the
province of the literary critic, it is reasonable to suggest that a detailed
analysis of authorial technique and stylistic features can be more successfully
achieved within a rigorous linguistic framework (1990:179)
The study of iconicity and rhetoric in the study of literature is related to
the linguistic framework. In the study of literary texts, this study can be viewed
as an attempt to examine the technique and stylistic features of authorical
author in constructing a story. No exception to what was done by
Shakespeare some four centuries ago.
Iconicity is one of the semiotic concepts introduced by Charles
Sanders Peirce that has recently attracted much attention across the
disciplines. In literature, especially drama, iconicity can be used to trace the
shape of stylistic strategy spoken by the characters in dialogue with one
another. Iconicity in the dialogue of literature in general can be seen in the
expression of
the characters stated in rhetoric to strengthen the
communication dimension.
Muller (2000: 305) claims that one of the quotations which linguists
deal with iconicity like to adduce are the words that Julius Caesar wrote in a
letter after one of his military victories; veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I
conquered). This saying is usually to illustrate the iconic principles that the
sequence of clauses in discourse tends to correspond to the temporal order
to the events referred to.
Furthermore, Givon in Muller (1995: 54) strongly confirmed that
Caesar’s dictum is undoubtedly an excellent example of chronological
iconicity, sequence, and its iconic force goes far beyond the mere expression
of chronological sequence. The principle of natural sequential order could be
exemplified by any other sequence of clauses without the specific rhetorical
shape of Caesar’s dictum, for instance by the sentence ‘he opened the door,
came in, sat, and eat’
Iconicity then becomes a precondition for communication and mutual
understanding. This has recently been pointed out by Winfried Nöth who
stresses that it is above all the diagrammatic icons structuring discourse and
reasoning that make text and arguments clearer and more transparent since
diagrams lay bare the path of the argument: “Diagrams in language are both
cognitively necessary and rhetorically efficient since icons are superior to
argumentation is concerned.” The importance of diagrammatic iconicity to
cognition also accounts for the new interest in analogy. Analogies are mental
diagrams with the effect of the parallel mapping of the structures of two
conceptual domains (Ljungberg, 2009: 3).
In fact, what has been done by previous researchers was only study on
literary text at the level of mere linguistic (semiotic and stylistic), and ends at
the presentation of linguistic facts and stylistic of literary language of the
literary text itself. This research will uncover both the linguistic evidence from
the text of literature and on social relations among characters in literary
As far as the researcher knows, up to know, there is no research or
studies that can be traced dealing with iconic force of rhetorical figures in
dialogue of drama. Recent developments of the study of literary texts through
linguistic perspective inspires the reseracher to conduct this research. The
research on iconicity will focus on some works of Shakespeare. It cannot be
denied that Shakespeare's works are really monumental in the history of
literature world.
It is generally known that one crucial aspect in which the study of
stylistic, by using semiotics approach, is merely applied on the study of style
of poems, novels, proverbs, and other literary genres, and mostly to
conservative analysis on literary of drama. At the same time, aspect of
iconicity is sometimes to be narrowed its functions in the study of semiotics
based. However, the claim of this research is that contrary to that general
idea, it is found that, at least at the researcher’s preliminary investigation of
study, dialogue of drama is significantly strategic since it is assumed as a
reflection of linguistic phenomena which are mirroring speaker’s thought
(characters) in interacting with other characters.
Now this study has merely limited its issues on iconicity and rhetoric
figure in Shakespeare's plays but at least it will be able to reflect and counter
some previous studies that ignore this aspect. According to the writer, this
study will open a new dimension in the stylistics and semiotics research of
literary texts discourse perspective. So far, other studies are generally
verisimilitude in nature, while this study will go further into the poetic license
of the playwright. To apply the theory of topicalization through the
incorporation theory of poetic functions by Roman Jacobson and theorytheme rheme by Halliday is the prove. In turn, this research will present a
typology of iconicity analysis for literary text of text.
In the latest developments, the discussion on iconicity has led to the
two different schools. According to Max & Fischer (1999: 3), the first one of
scholars is especially interested in how far the primary code, the code of
grammar, is influenced by iconic motivation, and how originally iconic models
have become conventionalized. Others go one step further in exploring how,
for instance, the presence of iconicity can tell us more about the structure of
human cognition or how the "iconicist desire for symmetry" can be related to
the symmetry of the human body. A second group of scholars (Ibid, 1999: xxi)
is more interested in the presence of iconicity as part of the secondary code,
i.e. in how speakers and writers remotivate or play with the primary code, how
they concretise what has become conventional or how they use form to add
to meaning.
This study will focus on Shakespeare’s plays. Even after four
centuries, the literary world remains to uphold Shakespeare as the greatest
genius in British literature. While best known as a playwright as well as
dramatist, Shakespeare was also a distinguished poet. Shakespeare’s
extraordinary gifts for complex poetic imagery, figurative language, mixed
metaphor, and intelligent puns, along with insight into human nature are the
characteristics that created the legend he is today. Shakespeare’s plays will
be lasting forever in the history of legacy literature world.
Literary works of Shakespeare as the source of the corpus of this
research are categorized into three parts. First, Comedies: The Tempest, The
Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Measure for
Measure, The Comedy of Errors, Much Ado About Nothing, Love’s Labour’s
Lost, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It,
The Taming of the Shrew, All’s Well That Ends Well, Twelfth Night, The
Winter’s Tale, Pericles, Prince of Tyre (not included in the First Folio), and
The Two Noble Kinsmen (not included in the First Folio). Second, Histories.
The works that belong to histories are King John, Richard II, Henry IV, Part 1,
Henry IV, Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI, Part 1, Henry VI, Part 2, Henry VI, Part
3, Richard III, and Henry VIII, and third Tragedies. Some works which are
grouped in tragedy are Troilus and Cressida, Coriolanus, Titus Andronicus,
Romeo and Juliet, Timon of Athens, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Hamlet, King
Lear, Othello, Cymbeline, and Antony and Cleopatra. The approximate dates
of Shakespeare’s Plays can be seen in appendix 1. But what specific or
selected works that primarily focuses on, they are presented in Chapter III
under the source of data (population and sample)
B. Problem Statements
One of the problems in the study of stylistics so far is that researchers
are just doing the process of identifying the style of the texts. The main
approach is stylistics itself. Another approach tends to be excluded. In fact,
research of stylistics is specifically to take advantage of other aspects, such
as aspect of semiotics. It is another reason why texts are natural focus for the
present study: within a text is possible to be more specific about how
language serves a particular artistic function. Here we touch on the purpose
of studying style, and hence on the nature of the stylistics.
Stylistics, simply defined as the (linguistics) study of style, is rarely
undertaken for its own sake, simply as an exercise in describing what use is
made of language. We normally study style because we want to explain
something, and in general, literary stylistics has, implicitly or explicitly, the
goal of explaining the relation between language and artistic function. The
motivating questions are not so much what as why and how from the linguist's
angel, it is 'why did the author in his works to choose to express himself in the
particular way? From the critic's viewpoint, it is "how is such-and-such an
aesthetic effect achieved through language? We should scarcely find the
style of Shakespeare worth the studying unless we assumed it could tell us
something about Shakespeare as a playwright. Style is being a relational
concept, the aim and the problem of literary stylistics is to be relational in a
more interesting sense than that already mentioned: to relate the critic's
concern of aesthetic effect while the linguistic's concern of linguistic
There is a little surprise, Cumming & Robert stated that by analysing a
literary text as a verbal artefact, we are asserting it’s status as literature.
There is no need for a stylistican to apologize for approaching it in this way.
Not so long ago, “stylistics” was often seen as rather threatening; the lingustic
analysis of a literary work would be denounced almost as if it was an indecent
act, an uncouth violation of it’s integrity (Cumming & Robert, 1986: viii).
Overall, in order to encounter and netralize the point above, Wales
(2001: 301) has made a very clear statement that “the goal of most stylistics
is not simply to describe the formal features of texts for their own sake, but in
order to show their functional significance for the interpretation of the text; or
in order to relate literary effects to linguistic 'causes' where these are felt to be
A work that becomes great and monumental might be caused by
several factors. In addition, it is not only of its intrinsic factor; theme, plot,
characterization and so on, but determined by the strength of the stylistic
strategy it uses as well. Shakespeare's works were judged to meet all the
categories. The works of Shakespeare are now not only become the property
of British culture but they have become the world's ones.
Besides that, as the result of his reputation, Shakespeare and his
works have been the object of studies from many disciplines and different
perspectives. Not only related to the research of literature (literary texts) such
as his plays, sonnet and poems, but also the study of history,
anthropolinguistic, culture, politics, arts and communications.
In the aspect of literary study, it besides being examined from the
perspective of literature, as well as being done more through linguistic
researches. As like this study. it will examine the stylistic strategy used by
Shakespeare in the works by focusing on the use of iconicity and aspect of
rhetoric in establishing communication with readers.
Furthermore, Fischer and Nanny (2000: 2) stated the differenciation
between the main types of iconicity especially the distinction between more
concrete and perceptual ‘imagic’ iconicity and the more abstract and
relational type of ‘diagrammatic’ iconicity. But this division, let it be said,
cannot always be drawn clearly, and the forms of iconicity are often fused in
both language and literature.
Based on review and subject matter beforehand, the researcher
proposes the concept and operational definition, related to the title of this
study, which is used in this study that ‘iconic force of rhetorical figure is a
figure which is connected to a kind of iconicity; it is defined as the conceived
similarity or analogy between the form of a sign (linguistic or otherwise) and
its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness. This aspect can be a symptom in
the rhetorical figure. The rhetorical figure itself is the ornament of speech
(based on the elementary ancient classification), and it can be divided into
schemes and tropes.
By examining the forms of iconicity so far as iconic forces to reveal all
of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's plays will open a new dimension to
reveal meaning (we may call it effect) in literature.
C. Scope of the Problems
Based on the problem statements mentioned before, it is necessary to
restrict the scope of analysis in order to focus the topic. This is a multidisciplinary research by using two grand theories (approaches); semiotics and
stylistics. The combination of the two approaches can be seen in figure 1
Figure 1: The Merge of Semiotics and Stylistics
It is necessary to restrict and elaborate the topic into practically
researchable scope. Here the literature is positioned as a literary text (literary
discourse), so the object of this study is the literary text (dialogue of drama) in
turn that the literary elements of theme, plot, characters, and so on, will not be
discussed here.
In this thesis, the researcher analyzes 1) a number of character’s
speeches, and 2) innermost thoughts spoken through dialogues of drama,
including soliloquy; a monologue spoken by an actor at a point in the play
when the character believes himself to be alone (and almost always alone on
the stage, or not face to face with another character on the stage). The
technique frequently reveals a character's innermost thoughts, including his
feelings, dreams, state of mind, motives or intentions. In drama texts soliloquy
is written by playwright in a separate form that integrates with the text as a
The soliloquy often provides necessary but otherwise inaccessible
information to the audience. The dramatic convention is that whatever a
character says in a soliloquy to the audience must be true, or at least true in
the eyes of the character speaking. Once again, a soliloquy is not usually
indicated by specific stage directions. In addition, this research, the data are
based on written texts.
Based on that point, it will be seen the style of language used, and
then the researcher explores what the effect of the speeches (utterances) in
literary context. Contents of speech which contain iconicity and rhetorical
figure are drawn in the style of language used by the playwright. However,
once again, it needs to be emphasized that this study will merely focus on the
iconic force of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's plays.
D. Formulation of the Problems
Based on the scope of the problems, this study has formulated various
problem statements dealing with the topic of iconic forces of rherorical figures
in Shakespeare’s plays. The description above has arisen a formulated
statement problem as follows
1. What is the characteristic of the iconic force of rhetorical figures in
Shakespeare’s plays?
2. What kind of iconicity do the meanings stand behind the iconic forces
of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare’s plays?
3. How do such iconic forces signify the portrayal of their assertive trend
throughout the depicted parts of the plays?
E. Rationale
This study hopefully will contribute to a better understanding of style of
Shakespeare especially about iconicity and rhetoric figures applied in his
works of plays. This study is an intersection between the study of semiotics
(Peircean) and stylistics (Verdonk). Shakespeare is the best known writer in
all of English literature and has not earned this reputation without reason. It
must be admitted that Shakespeare's works of literary genius whose work has
enthralled audiences since Elizabethan times.
Works of Shakespeare's work have become the object of study of
various disciplines and perspectives, not least on linguistic aspects of the
works; semiotics, stylistics, pragmatics, and so on. Distinctive use of
language is also an important part of Shakespeare. His works are like a
‘shadow behind the curtain’ that is full of mystery.
Throughout literary history, it is said that a number of phenomena lies
behind the greatness of Shakespeare's works that have not been revealed
until now. Literary critics and linguistic researchers must concern to reveal the
‘mystery’ in the scientific study.
Examining stylistic works of Shakespeare cannot be separated from
efforts to uncover Shakespeare’s poetic license (when applied to prose
writers, the term is often called artistic license) i.e. the freedom of a
playwright, a poet or other literary writer to depart (deviate) from the norms of
common discourse, literal reality, belief or historical truth in order to create a
special effect in or for the reader.
By this study, it is also expected to enrich our perspective and a better
understanding of iconicity and rhetoric figure and their application in literary
works especially in literary texts of drama.
Contribution of this research will open new insights to the study of
literature (especially drama) by using two approaches simultaneously;
semiotics and stylistics, within the framework of linguistic research.
Furthermore, the results of this research will also in turn to contribute to the
field of linguists to make a prespective research of literature as its object.
F. Research Objectives
A stylistic strategy analysis through dialogues of characters in drama is
a part of a multi-dimensional research in literature. This is in line with the
nature of literary works which are multi-relations and dimensions. To examine
the topic in focus, the purposes of this study are formulated as follows:
1. to identify the characteristic of the iconic force of rhetorical figures in
Shakespeare’s plays
2. to reveal the meaning behind the iconic force of rhetorical figures in
Shakespeare’s plays
3. to describe how such iconic forces signify the portrayal of their
assertive trends throughout the depicted parts of the plays
The first objective can be achieved by exploring Shakespeare’s works
through dialogues of characters. Dialogue between the characters in each
work must be investigated thoroughly and accurately. The second objective
can be achieved through theory of iconicity proposed by Peirce. Iconicity is
one of the semiotic concepts introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce that has
recently attracted much attention across the disciplines including literary texts
(of dialogues of drama). Then the third goal can be achieved through in-depth
review to see the frequency of tabulating on the existence of iconic forces of
rhetorical figures in each work
Noth (1990: 124) claims, in his ’iconicity in language’ that structural
linguistic has for a long time adhered to the Saussurean dogma of
arbitrariness. Only recently has the importance of the opposed principle of
iconicity become a topic of more intensive. This rhetorical idea also inspired
this research.
G. Significance of the Study
This research in turn is expected to give and expose findings. The
findings of this study are not merely just a conclusion from this study but
rather something alternative model and new discourse that may inspire
further researchers on related topic of discussion.
Research on the iconicity associated with rhetorical figure as far as the
writer’s search has never been done so far, especially in the level of
dissertation research. So far, these two topics are merely examined
separately on aspects of semiotic and literary style. However, the theory of
iconicity and rhetorical figures have been introduced by various linguists
separately. Particularly on the field of rhetoric has been known since the days
of Aristotle. This study attempts to merge the two.
As for the significance of the study it is expected to provide two key of
benefits, namely the benefits of theoretical and practical ones. Both the
benefits of both theoretical and practical benefits will be described in later
chapter of this report.
H. Basic Assumption of the Study
1. Icons are omnipresent in language. We need icons to evoke mental
images of past experience and therefore ‘the only way of directly
communicating an idea is by means of an icon’. Since we cannot say
anything about the world without evoking mental images. Pierce
concludes that ‘every assertion must contain an icon or a set of icons’.
But iconicity is not restricted to the familiar images of the past. Icons
are also necessary to create new ideas, since the only way of
conveying new ideas is by means of a complexus of icons. We can
only create new ideas by transforming existing images. Only by means
of a conjunction or a disjunction of icons can we arrive at ‘composite
images of which the whole is not [yet] familiar (Noth, 2000: 26).
2. An icon is a sign made to reflect some perceivable property of a
referent so that it can be figured out in the signifier. Photographs,
drawing, Roman numerals such as I, II, and III are visual iconic signs
they are
created to
their referents
onomatopoeic words are vocal iconic signs because they are created
to reflect sound properties of their referents; perfumes are olfactory
iconic signs because they are meant to be suggestive of certain
natural scents.[..] The presence of iconicity in representational systems
across cultures is strong evidence that human consciousness is
attentive to the recurrent patterns of colour, shape, dimention,
movement, sound, taste, etc. detected by the human perceptual
system (Danesi & Perron, 1999: 85-86).
3. What is commonly and restrictively believed to be ‘rhetoric’ in its entity,
that is, the various techniques of elocutio. In order to force the listener
to pay attention to the premises and arguments one must stimulate his
attention; it is here that rhetorical figures (for the various figure of
thought, figure of speech, and tropes) come in, these being the
embellishments by means of which the discourse acquires an unusual
and novel appearance, thus offering an unexpectedly high rate of
information (Eco, 1976: 278)
4. Ancient rhetoric included stylistics in the branch of elocatio.
Traditionally, three styles (genera) were distinguished; the loftly our
sublime, the middle or common, and the plain style. But in a broader
sense, ancient stylistics comprises the whole sphere of elocutio, in
particular the rhetorical ornaments (ornatus) of tropes and figure.
Significantly, these are now often referred to as stylistic figures (Noth,
2000: 339).
5. Pragmatic dimensions of persuasion were out lined in Aristotle’s
Rhetoric. His distinction of three factors of effective persuasion, (a) the
personal character of the speaker, (b) putting the audience into a
certain frame of mind, and (c) proof or subject, circumscribe the
expressive, appellative, and referential function of discourse (Noth,
2000: 340)
6. A figure of speech is the use of a word or words diverging from its
usual meaning. It can also be a special repetition, arrangement or
omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized
meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, as in
idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, or personification. Figures of
speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity.
However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech
introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A
figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetorical figure or a locution.
7. A characterization of style which would include such concepts of
deviation, addition and choice defined it as the difference of alternative
messages. Yet, besides this concept of stylistics and its many variants,
style is often defined in a much broader sense. [..] Hill, for example,
defined stylistics as the study of language beyond the limit of sentence
(1958: 406) Stylistics thus covers the whole field of text of linguistics.
Others, in the particular literary critics, have adopted definitions of style
according to which the scope of stylistics is essentially coextensive
with the field of poetics or the interpretation of literature (Noth, 2000:
A. Previous Studies
There are four researchers, at least, who have done respectively
research on stylistics and semiotics in relation to the literary texts of its
objects. They are Stanislaus Sandarupa (1989); Tropes, Symbolism,
Rhetorical Structure, Structure of Parallelism, and Parallelism of Structure in
Toraja, (2004); Poetics and Politics of the Kingly Death Ritual in Toraja South
Sulawesi Indonesia, Mustafa Makka (2006); A Stylistic Analysis of Les A.
Murray’s Selected Poems; A Symbolic Representation of Contemporary
Shakespearian Soliloquies, and Sudarmin Harun (2012); Cultural Value in
Buginese Traditional Songs.
Sandarupa (2004) has done a research on ritual speech of Toraja, it is
a grounded theory-based. According to Sandarupa, the goal of his research is
to understand Toraja social action via context-bound performances as such
performances index social value, spatial concepts and metaphors and
tensions among community members. Furthermore, Makka (2006) has done
successfully a research on literary texts, contemporary Australian poems,
through stylistics analysis. According to Makka, the study of literary texts
(Australian poems) using stylistics analysis is one of some perspectives to
reveal literary sensitivity, aesthetic qualities of Murray’s idea and his textual or
verse patterns of Australian Poems.
This research has tried to reveal Murray’s language style that is
significant in grammatical construction using ellipsis, parallelism and
deviation; such linguistic feature makes up intelligible communication of his
works. The study is limited to the application of stylistics through language
description to examine linguistic features and relate them to literary
sensitivity, aesthetic qualities of Murray’s idea and his textual or verse
patterns. Provided with the stylistic interpretative strategy, Murray’s literary
styles were elaborated to reveal how they are functional in conveying his
empirical observation of the country as a whole. This way means that the
recognition of the importance of lanuage in literary study is a prime basis to
describe throughly effects produced by the language of any literary text in
attempting to accont for a systematically fuller interpretation.
Furthermore, Murphy (2007) in his study has done a research on a
corpus stylistic approach to literary drama and focus on Shakespearian
characters’ soliloquies. Although not without their critics, corpus stylistic
studies have offered scope and realibility in the study of literary texts,
particularly through key word analysis. In addition, Harun (2012) performs an
oral literature research (Buginese Songs) by using semiotic approach. This
research specializes in the study of symbols. Harun implies that aspect of
symbols is one way to express and explore the meaning.
Again, Harun (2012), viewing the perspective of Peirce semiotic,
literary work is arranged from symbolic sign because language becomes a
medium of literary work that always being a system of conventional signs.
However, beside its symbolic signs that have a certainly, literary work even of
course is able to manifest the other dimension of sign specially iconic,
symbolic and indexical dimension.
According to the researcher, the study of Sandarupa (2004) does not
focus on icon or iconicity. It is about poetical and rhetorical mechanism
through which speakers are involved in a dynamic, indexical dramatic and
theatrical discursive interaction whose outcome is unanticipatible. Likewise,
Makka (2006) has focused on the stylistic aspects of the work. From the
stylistic aspect as a basis, he was to explore the symbolic representation of
the work that made the object of research. Furthermore, Murphy (2007) also
does a research on Shakesperian soliloquies by using a stylistic analysis. His
study is based on a key word, grammatical category and semantic field
analysis of soliloquies and aside in Shakespeare’s plays. This study is not
focussed on semiotics aspect especially aspect of icon. For Harun (2012), his
study applies semiotics analysis, using a literary semiotic approach (Peirce’s
symbol) but it does not discuss the aspect of icon rather than symbol.
This study will be, of course, different from previous researches. The
difference lies in the aspect of viewpoint and object of study, the research
also shows that this approach applies a combination of two grand theories,
namely the theory semiotics and stylistics theory. The combination of these
approaches can be seen in the formulation of the problem statements and
research objectives as well. The topic of iconic forces of rhetorical figures are
the combination of semiotics and stylistics approach. Thus it is clear that this
research will make it significantly different from some previous studies.
The absence of researches specifically on “iconic forces of rhetorical
figures” for both of the works of Shakespeare and other literary works will be
a clear evidence that this research is something new that has not been done
by previous researchers of literature before.
B. Iconicity Versus Arbitrariness.
Iconicity has often been defined in contrast to arbitrariness, and the
opposition of the iconic vs. the arbitrary sign has frequently been associated
with the dichotomy of the natural vs. the conventional sign; the icon is the
natural sign, which is similar to its object of reference, while the arbitrary sign
is the conventional sign, which evinces no similarity to its referential object
(Noth, 2000: 18). This statement can be simplified as in the following figure;
natural sign
arbitrary sign
Figure 2 Iconicity versus arbitrariness
The word icon is then to be a part of iconicity in a broad sense. Peirce
is the first and the only one who introduced icon in the field of semiotics. In
Peirce’s semiotics, the icon is a sign (iconic sign) that is based on the
similarity between the sign (representamen) and its object, although not
solely rely on the natural image as it is, since the graph, schema, or map also
include icons. As a philosopher, Pierce looked at that type of sign which is
based on resemblance is iconic signs, and its phenomena can be referred to
as iconicity
Iconic signs, according to the classical definitions of Peirce and Morris
(Noth, 1990: 121), have a sign vehicle which is similar to their denotatum, but
the validity of this criterion is similarity has frequently been questioned, icons
not only are signs of visual communication, but exist in almost any area of the
semiotic field including language.
Furthermore, Haley (1988: 14) claims that [..] an icon signifies its
object because it resembles it in some ways, as a photograph is (principally)
an icon of the things depicted in the picture. To support this statement,
Sandarupa [quoting Peirce 1955] (2012: 10) argues that [..] when a sign
related to an object based on the idea of similarity, it is called icon. If it is on
existential, contiguity or causal relation then it is index. If it is on convention
then it is symbol.
Peirce gave various definition of the icon which focuses on different
criteria valid for a large class of semiotis phenomena [..]. One of his main
criteria is based on his semiotic category of firstness. Another is the criterion
of similarity between the sign vehicle and its object. From his triadic system of
semiotics, Pierce divided a triple sub classification of the icon (Noth, 1990:
121). These classifications can be found as follows
Table 1: A Triple subclassification of the icon
1 Immediacy of the icon
2 The icon in relation to its object
3 Images, diagrams, and metaphors
Firstness of the icon
The pure icon
The criterion of similarity
Iconic openness
The pragmatic dimension of
 Images
 diagrams, and
 metaphors
Hypoicons is a term firsly introduced by Peirce to show his triadic
system. He further distinguished three modes of firstness and accordingly
subdivided icon (Noth, 1990: 123). Peirce is then to stress that hypoicons
may be roughly divided according to the mode of firstness of which they
partake. Those which partake in simple qualities, or first firstness, are images;
those which represent the relations, mainly dyadic, or so regarded, of the
parts of one thing by analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams;
those which represent the representative character of a representamen by
representing a parallelism in something else, are metaphors (Ibid, 1990: 123).
Thus, the three types of icon represent three degrees of decreasing
iconicity and also semiotic degeneracy. Images are immediately iconic,
representing simple qualities, as in a colour picture. Diagrams are icons of
relations and thus depend on indices and conventions. Metaphors are
metasigns whose iconicity is based on the similarity between the objects of
two symbolic signs, the tenor and the vehicle of the metaphor.
In short, images (immediately iconic that represents simple qualities,
as in a colour picture, maps, graph and so on), diagrams (relation that
depends on indices and conventions), and metaphors (two symbolic signs)
are the aspects associated with iconicity. By utilizing these three aspects,
then iconicity can be explored.
According to Morris (cited by Eco, 1979: 192) a sign is iconic “to what
extend to which it itself has the properties of its denotata”. At first glance
common sense might mislead one into agreeing with this definition. But a
more through examination in the light of that same common sense forces one
to realize that the definition is more or less tautological and any case rather
There is another and far subtler definition proposed by Peirce.
According to him a sign is a icon when it “may represent its object mainly by
its similarity” To say that a sign is similar to its object is not the same as
saying that it possesses some of its properties. In any case this definition
relies on the notion of ‘similitude’. Which has a scientific status and is less
imprecise than that of ‘sharing properties’ (Eco, 1976: 195).
In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity is
the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign (linguistic or
otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness, compare with what is
being proposed by Barthes (1971). Iconic principles cover (i) Quantity
principle: conceptual complexity corresponds to formal complexity, (ii),
Proximity principle: conceptual distance tends to match with linguistic
distance, and (iii) Sequential order principle: the sequential order of events
described is mirrored in the speech chain
What comes to the writer’s mind, by taking into account the concept of
cognitive linguistics and semiotics, is that the iconicity can be simulated with
rhetoric figure and then to be demonstrated in studying literary work as a text
discourse, especially drama dialogues. Eventhough this is a complex and
complicated one but according to the writer’s mind, this is a researchable one
and might be done with the supporting some earlier theories.
Peirce explains that a sign may be classified as either an ‘icon,’ an
‘index,’ or a ‘symbol,’ according to its relation with its 'dynamical object.' An
‘icon’ (such as a picture, image, model, or diagram) is a sign which itself
demonstrates the qualities of its 'dynamical object.' An ‘index’ or ‘seme’ (such
as a clock, thermometer, fuel gauge, or medical symptom) is a sign which
demonstrates the influence of its 'dynamical object.' A ‘symbol’ (such as a
trophy, medal, receipt, diploma, monument, word, phrase, or sentence) is a
sign which is interpreted to be a reference to its 'dynamical object.' This is the
Second Trichotomy of Signs. An ‘icon’ corresponds to the category of
Firstness, an ‘index’ corresponds to the category of Secondness, and a
‘symbol’ corresponds to the category of Thirdness.
The three types of sign may be represented as in Table 3 and reflect
general principles of coping wih forms and meanings
Figure 3. The Three Types of Signs
Based on the diagram above, icon (iconicity) can be contrasted with
arbitrariness, or in Peirce’s terms, iconic is the opposite of symbolic, Iconicity
can be found not only in language but also in other domains of the world of
signs. In general, there is iconicity if something in the form of a sign reflects
something in the world (normally through a mental operation). For language,
this means that something in the form of a linguistic sign reflects (through its
meaning) something in its referent.
In order to maximize the application theory into practice, Peircean
theory of iconicity will be one of the among theories applied in this research.
The Peircean theory of iconicity (a breaking down) will be shown in the
following figure.
Figure 4. Peircean Theory of Iconicity
Generally speaking there are three types of icons such as proposed by
Peirce. These three types are imagic, diagrammatic and metaphoric. Each
icon (especially image) can be subdivided into several types.
1) Imagic - image is a direct iconic sign, featuring simple qualities as shown in
the drawings and works of art in general. In other words, imagic icon is an
icon that resembles the reality of the signified to which it refers. In
language, types of imagic icons can be divided into three:
• Onomatopoeia is an imitation of natural sounds around or the sounds
produced by certain objects. It is also be said that onomatopoeia is
when a word’s pronunciation imitates its sound. When you say an
onomatopoeic word, the utterance itself is reminiscent of the sound to
which the word refers, such as “pang” or ‘boom”. The bridge collapsed
creating a tremendous boom.
• phonaestheme are "words that contain certain consonant clusters
and / or certain vowel or its alofon that associate to a particular
semantic value. For instance, bak, bik, buk (stating that motions occur
rapidly, suddenly, and more stable). Further example, in words like
glimmer, glitter, and glisten, the initial gl-phonestheme is associated
with vision or light. That way, the very act of pronouncing the word
iconically mimics a key aspect of its meaning.
• Symbolism of sound is the similarity between the concept of how to
pronounce the sound of which is symbolized. An interjection is a
sudden outburst of emotion or excitement, such as “ouch” or “wow.”
2). Diagrammatic iconicity is the icon that has a geometric structure with what
it represents. This icon is based on the relationship between the sign that
reflects the similarity with the object or action. For example, the sequence
of events reflected in the word order of action, as in the words of Julius
Caesar "Vini, vidi, vici." Thus, according to Johansen (Fisher and Nanny,
2000: 3) "a diagram is characterized by depicting relations analogous to
those of the represented object. A map, for instance, is a diagram,
because the relations between the different parts are analogous to those
between the parts of the geographical area it depicts".
3) Metaphoric is a metasign which its iconicity based on the similarity
between two objects of symbolic signs. Thus, metaphoric icons are icons
that refer to some of the signified that are similar to their referents.
Based on this theory, the study of literary text – for the data presentation –
should be related to the rhetoric figure of stylistics of the author.
This research is a study of literary text by using a linguistic approach
(Peirce’s semiotics to literary texts). While the term literary text intended to
imply that the media of literature work is language. Linking for the two is
language as an object belongs to linguistics while language is a medium of
literary text belong to literary works
C. Iconicity and Rhetoric
Iconicity and Rhetoric are two different topics in linguistic study.
Iconicity is a subsystem of sign (semiotics) and Rhetoric is a study under the
umbrella of stylistics. In order to explore the two in one topic, it requires a
merge of two disciplines, they are semiotics and stylistics.
1. The Iconic Dimension in Rhetoric
According to Aristotle it is the function of rhetoric to persuade by an
effective use of word and argument. He distinguishes between three types of
proof of persuasion: (1) ethos, the representation of the speaker’s character
as a trustworthy man; (2) pathos, the capacity for moving the hearer
emotionally; (3) logos, the convincing use of issue - related argument. In
other words, the speaker must achieve three things if he wants to plead
successfully: He must present himself as a creditable person (ethos), he must
move his hearers emotionally (pathos), and he must argue competently
(logos). Of these three aspects of the persuasive process pathos has
traditionally been related to iconicity (Muller, 2000: 307-308).
Overall, iconicity has often been defined in contrast to arbitrariness,
and the opposition of the iconic vs. the arbitrary sign has frequently been
associated with the dichotomy of the natural vs. the conventional sign. It is
indeed curious that with these saying linguists adduce a quotation that is as
rhetorical and as far removed from ordinary language as may be. Nobody
would be in an ordinary, real-life context use such language, except when
citing it as a quotation. And the use of Caesar’s words with the purpose of
illustrating such an evident iconic principle as the correspondence of the
temporal sequence of events in real life with the sequence of its
representation in language can almost be called misuse of a quotation. For
the specific iconic force of Caesar’s words derives from the entire rhetorical
form of the utterance, which with its asyndetic isocolon and its sound
correspondences, -- alliteration and assonance (Jakobson 1960: 358,
Johansen 1994:49 ff.) -- expresses a sense of achievement, the
consciousness of a series of actions swiftly and expertly performed.
The very crucial discussion is about iconic force of rhetorical figures in
conjunction with the 'thought' and 'reality' in literary text (let's call it a dialogue
in drama). There are scholars who hold the opinion philosophically that the
structure of language reflects the structure of reality. On the other hand, the
transformational approach to language (Chomsky) was predominant, which
“claimed that the structure of language reflects the structure of ‘thought’.
Haiman (1980: 537) argues for the iconicity of grammar in general,
contending that “the structure of thought reflects [..] the structure of ‘reality’ to
an extent greater that it is now fashionable to recognize.
In a later publication, Haiman modifies his position to some extent,
postulating that “linguistic structures are often similar to non-linguistic
diagrams of our thoughts” (Haiman, 1985: 8). This notion is denied by a
theorist such as August Fenk, who believes that iconicity requires an
immediate relation of language to the external world ---“perceptual similarity
between sign and referent” --- and thus doubts the possibility of “a thought’s
iconic character” (Fenk, 1997: 217). Such a limited understanding of verbal
mimesis or iconicity cannot do justice to Julius Caesar’s dictum Veni, vedi,
vici, for instance, whose rhetorical structure expresses a subjective attitude to
reality. What the linguistic structure imitates is not external reality, but a
subjective perception or, rather, conception of reality, a mental structure
which is related to external reality but does not merely imitate or copy it.
Rhetorical features, for instance, schemes like asyndeton and climax or
different forms of word-order, are structuring and ordering devices, which
point to the structure and activity of the mind and to cognitive and
epistemological processes. The categories, which Earl Anderson relates to
syntactic ‘iconisms’, --- “chronology, hierarchy, preference, direction, length or
duration, and complexity versus simplicity” (Anderson, 1998: 265) --- belong
to the sphere of the mind or consciousness and not to that of external reality.
Thus rhetorical iconicity does not really consist in a mirroring of objective
reality, but in an interpretation or structuring of reality or experience from a
personal point of view. To repeat it once more a strongly rhetorically
structured utterance such as Caesar’s reflects the speaker’s view of reality
rather than reality as such. Iconicity occurs in language in general and in
2. Kinds of Iconic Force of Rhetorical Figures
Rhetoric is the art of persuasive argument through writing or speech-the art of eloquence and charismatic language, while rhetorical figure that is
figure of speech such as shemes and tropes. Those two figures of speech are
important to categorize the rhetorical figures
Another elementary ancient classification divided rhetorical figures into
scheme and trope. A scheme is a deviation from the ordinary patterns of
words in sentences. A trope involves a semantic deviation. The distinction
underlying the classification can be correlated with the two dimensions of
syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Within the system of tropes,
Jakobson (1956) considered metaphor and metonymy to be two prototypical
figure […] (Noth, 1999: 341).
An important terminological clarification has lately been provided by
Winfried Noth, who, with regard to literature, makes a distinction between “the
traditional form of mimetic iconicity”, which he designates “as exophoric
iconicity, i.e. iconicity referring beyond the text”, and “a second major form of
iconicity” which consists of referrals by likeness within the text, either at the
expression or at the content plapne”. The latter form of iconicity he calls
“endophoric iconicity” (Noth 1999: 649). Both these forms of iconicity are, as
he demonstrates using the key terms of M.H. Abrams’ famous book The
Mirror and the Lamp (1981), to be found in literature: “[..] literature is both
iconic when it function as a lamp creating its own pattern of endophoric
referral” (Noth 1999:649). However valuable Noth’s distinction may be, he
fails to consider the fact that in a text it may sometimes be difficult to separate
exophoric and endophoric iconicity. As we shall see, endophoric and
exophoric iconicity may coincide at times.
What the writer understands so far, kinds of iconic forces of rhetorical
figures must start to work from the iconic signs. Semiotic phenomena in a
text, in a drama dialogue for instance, can be traced through the sign-unit
uttered by characters. From there, the communication between the characters
will look the element of force between them.
Eco (1979: 190) explained that one must, at this point, face the
problem of so-called iconic signs, in order to discover how many semiotic
phenomena are commonly covered by this all-embracing term. The so-called
iconism in fact covers many semiotic procedures, many ways of producing
signals ordered to a signal function, and we will see that, even though there is
something different between the word /dog/ and the image of a dog, this
difference is not trivial one between iconic and arbitrary (or ‘symbolic’) signs.
It is rather a matter of a complex and continuously gradated array of different
modes of producing signs and texts, every sign function (sign-unit or text)
being in turn the result of many of these modes of production.
Eco (ibid, 191) eventually formulated the only way to maintain it is to
demonstrate that even in these types of signs a correlational convention is in
operation. The core of the problem is obviously the notion of convention,
which is co-extensive with that of cultural link. If one examine the mode of
production of the signal in itself but also its mode of correlation to its content,
the correlation operation being part of the production [..]. The problem is to
find out whether the former is a cultural correlation (and therefore a
conventional one) and the latter is not; or whether, or on the contrary, both
involve some sort of cultural correlation even though these correlations are
operationally different (ratio facilis vs. facio difficilis).
In order to prove that the image of a dog also signifies a dog by means
of a cultural mode of correlation, one must first of all challenge some naïve
notions. The notions are;
that the so-called iconic sign has the same properties as its
that the so-called iconic sign is similar to its object;
that the so-called iconic sign is analogous to its object;
that the so-called iconic sign is motivated by its object;
permeating the critique of these assumptions is a contrasting one, which risks
attaining an equal dogmatism, i.e.;
that the so-called iconic sign are arbitrary coded.
we shall see that it is possible to assert that they are culturally coded without
saying that they are totally arbitrary, thereby restoring to the category of
conventionally a more flexible sense. But when one has solved these
problems one is faced with a last possible assumption:
VI) that the so-called iconic signs,whether arbitrary or not, are
analyzable into petinent coded units and may be subject to a multiple
articulation, as are verbal signs.
We shall see that, if one accepts (V) without reservations, one is also
forced to accept (VI) which could lead to a lot of difficulties. But if one views
(V) in the flexible and prudent way outlined above, (VI) is no longer strictly
and directly dependent upon (V). One could thus assume that so-called iconic
signs are culturally coded without necessarily implying that they are arbitrarily
correlated to their content and that their expression is discretely analyzable
(Eco, 1976: 191-192).
3. Exophoric, and Endophoric Iconicity
The term Exophoric and Endophoric Iconicity was first introduced by
M.H Abrams through his famous book “The Mirror and the Lamp” (1981).
Later the term was used by Winfried Noth (1990) with regard to literature,
makes a distinction between “the traditional form of mimetic iconicity”, which
he designates “as exophoric iconicity, i.e. iconicity referring beyond the text”,
and “a second major form of iconicity” which consists of referrals by likeness
within the text, either at the expression or at the content plapne”. The latter
form of iconicity he calls “endophoric iconicity”
Halliday (2004, 552) also wrote about exophora and endophora.
According to him, this is a technical kind of pointing or phora. This is divided
into two kinds; exophoric (pointing ‘outward’) and endophoric (pointing
Exophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the
reference item is recoverable from the environment of the text [..]. Here
the reference links the text to environment; but it does not contributed to
the cohesion of the text, except indirectly when reference to one and the
same referent are repeated, forming a chain. Such chains are common
in dialogue with repetition of reference to the interactants by means of
forms of I, you, we and so on.
Endophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the
reference item is recoverable from within the text itself-or, to be more
precise, from the instantial system of meanings created as the text
unfolds. As the text unfolds, speakers and listener build up system of
meaning [..]. Once a new meaning has been introduced, it becomes part
of the system, and if it is right category of thing, it can be presumed by
endophoric reference. There are actually two possibilities here.
Endophoric reference may point ‘backwards’ to the story of the unfolding
text, that is, to referent that has already been introduced and is thus part
of the text’s system of meaning. This type of endophoric reference is
called anaphora, or anaphoric reference, and the element that is
pointed to anaphorically is called the antecedent. Anaphora is very
common; it makes a significant contribution to many kinds of text – for
example, it is a hallmark of narrative, where we find long chains of
anaphoric references. Alternativellly, endophoric reference may point
‘forwards’ to the future of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that is
yet to be introduced.
Thus in the following example, this guy indicates that more about this referent
is to come:
/One day I was sitting in the Dôme, a street cafѐ in Montparnasse
quite close to [[where we were living]].//and this guy walked
up//and said,// “I met you in 1948 or 1949. //My name is Harold
Humes”.//My name is Harold Humes.” //He said ll He was starting a
new magazine, The Paris News-Post, //and would I become its
fiction editor. (Cited and adapted from Halliday).
This is a strategy for introducing a person into narrative passages in
conversation. And even clearer example is the use of this on its own to
anticipate a passage of text; for example:
/In brief, the soon widely held assumption was this;//man could
understand the universe//because it was natural//and he was
rational.//Moreover, he might be able to control, even reorder his
environment,//once he had knowledge of it. (Cited and adapted
from Halliday).
This type of endophoric reference is called cataphora, or cataphoric
reference. Cataphora is quite rare compared with anaphora. The only
exception is structural cataphora (cf. Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 72), which is
common. Here the reference is resolved within the same nominal group
where the reference item appears; a deictic the or that/those is used to
indicated that the qualifier of a nominal group.
In a further development, Wolfgang G. Muller wrote an article entitled
“the study on 'Iconicity and rhetoric: A note on the iconic force of rhetorical
figures in Shakespeare' aims at showing how rhetorical iconicity may mirror
perceptions and conceptions of reality while other imitate emotional states,
and other reflect logical operations. Muller uses in his article Winfried Noth's
distinction between 'endophoric' and 'exophoric' iconicity broadly understood
to analyse examples of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's plays.
Based on these descriptions, at least there are two important key
1) rhetorical iconicity may mirror ‘perceptions’ and ‘conceptions’ of
reality while other imitate emotional states, and other reflect logical
operations, and.
2) distinction between 'endophoric' and 'exophoric' iconicity broadly
understood to analyse examples of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's
In linguistics, endophora is a term that means an expression which
refers to something intralinguistic (understandable), i.e. in the same text. For
example, let's say we are given: "I saw Anina yesterday. She was lying on the
beach". Here "she" is an endophoric expression because it refers to
something already mentioned in the text, i.e. "Anina".
By contrast, "She was lying on the beach," if it appeared by itself, has
an exophoric expression; "she" refers to something that the reader (audience)
is not told about. That is to say, there is not enough information in the text to
independently determine to whom "she" refers to. It can refer to someone the
speaker assumes his audience has prior knowledge of or it can refer to a
person he is showing to his audience (listeners). Without further information,
in other words, there is no way of knowing the exact meaning of an exophoric
term. Endophora can be broken into three subcategories: cataphora,
anaphora and self-reference.
Thus, the ‘perceptions’ and ‘conceptions’ can be explained as follows;
‘perceptions’ is “the process, act, or faculty of perceiving – any insight,
intuition or knowledge gained by perceiving, while ‘conceptions’ is the ability
to form mental concepts; invention - that which is mentally conceived: a
concept, plan, design, idea or thought” (Morris, ed.,1981: 275 and 973). Both
cognitive capacity is meant to mirror the reality (imitate emotional states), and
to reflect logical operations.
4. The Rhetoric Emotion in Shakespeare’s Plays
A rhetoric on the basis of Peirce’s semiotic is being rediscovered and
developed further by Deledalle (1979) Podlewski (1982), Fry (1986).
Pierece’s triadic theory and typology of sign has been used as a model of
interpretation for the system of rhetorical figures [..] Pierce also developed a
pragmatic theory of rhetoric (Noth, 1999: 342).
By this concept, the writer strongly believes that literary text is a good
tool for tracing iconicity is used by author in creating his works. It is not
possible, through iconity, author conveys an important implied message and
meaning for the reader (audience). In communicating, understanding of
iconicity is important to maintain a more meaningful communication, and
communicating in rhetoric, one of its points is a persuasive speaker and the
listener (audience), authors with readers, and performers with the audience,
or dialogue between the characters in the drama.
With that point in mind, how does one make an argument persuasive
enough to change the beliefs of another person? In classical Greek rhetoric,
there are three basic approaches - three "rhetorical appeals"- one can use to
make a convincing argument. They include these three items:
a. Logos (using logical arguments such as induction and deduction)
b. Pathos (creating an emotional reaction in the audience)
c. Ethos (projecting a trustworthy, authoritative, or charismatic image)
In addition to balancing logic, emotion, and charisma, the rhetor also has to
adapt the argument, tone, and approach for the specific audience. This
audience adaptation takes into account the assumptions of that audience,
and analyzes the spoken and unspoken assumptions behind a specific line of
Rhetoric also involves language as an art. We have all heard, at some
point in our lives, a particularly eloquent speaker. That speaker had good
rhetoric. Rhetoric also involves what are often called "The Flowers of
Rhetoric." These include inventio (the techniques for thinking up the points to
discuss), schemes (rhetorical devices that involve artful patterns in sentence
structure) and tropes (rhetorical devices involving shifts in the meaning or use
of words). In this study, the last two points may take into account.
In general speaking, rhetoric is the art and theory of public speaking.
However, it has been a shift from time to time. According to Noth (1999: 338),
the ‘degenaration’ of rhetoric came with a shift of emphasis from practical art
of persuation in social context to an art of mere eloquence or even of deceit.
Within the narrower scope, rhetoric developed an elaborate system of
ornaments of speech, the so-called rhetorical figure
In what follows, the writer will first make some general remarks on the
problem of rhetoric and iconicity, and then exploring the iconic potential of a
number of rhetorical devices, concentrating on figures or schemes. The
discussion and presentation will predominantly be taken from dialogues of
Shakespeare’s plays as the objects of this research.
D. Stylistics
Stylistics is the study and interpretation of texts from a linguistic
perspective. As a discipline it links to literary criticism and linguistics, but has
no autonomous domain of its own (Widdowson, 1988: 1). The preferred
object of stylistic studies is literature, but not exclusively only literature but
also other forms of written texts such as text from the domains of religion,
advertising, pop culture, music or politics.
In practice, stylistics also attempts to establish principles capable of
explaining the particular choices made by individuals and social groups in
their use of language, such as the production and reception of meaning,
critical discourse analysis, literary criticism, book reviews and journalistic
Other features of stylistics include the use of dialogue, including
regional accents and people’s dialects, descriptive language, the use of
grammar, such as the active voice or passive voice, the distribution of
sentence lengths, the use of particular language registers, etc. In addition,
stylistics is a distinctive term that may be used to determine the connections
between the form and effects within a particular variety of language.
Therefore, stylistics looks at what is ‘going on’ within the language; what the
linguistic associations are that the style of language reveals.
A characterization of style which would include such concepts of
deviation, addition and choice defined it as the difference of alternative
messages. Yet, besides this concept of stylistics and its many variants, style
is often defined in a much broader sense (Noth, 1999: 343).
Short (1988: 4) claims that it is not the purpose of stylistic analysis to
come up with a “definitive” reading or interpretation of a text, but that
undertaking an “objective” linguistic analysis of a text is one way of limiting
the scope of possible interpretations, including misinterpretations. Stylistics,
then, no longer pretends to lay any claim it might once have done to an
objectively discovered “meaning” in a text based solely on the derivation of
descriptive categories drawn from linguistics. Rather, it has moved away from
this position to acknowledge the fact that linguistic categories by themselves
are not sufficient, or the only factors which need to be considered in the act of
As a branch of applied linguistics, then, stylistics drew upon
developments in descriptive linguistics (especially in its earlier stages), and
particularly so in relation to grammar, through which it developed many of its
models and “tools” for analysis. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth
century and now into the twenty-first, it has also drawn upon developments in
literary theory, and has been particularly indebted to reception theory for its
shift in focus to include not only considerations thrown up by the text, but also
to recognize how we as readers shape a text and in turn are shaped by it.
Added to this have been developments in cognitive linguistics, which draws
upon psychological theories of processing. Similarly, the study of pragmatics
demands that the act of interpretation takes into account the structures of
language actually in use. These issues are particularly important for an
analysis of the language of drama, and also when considering interactional
and contextual aspects of linguistic behaviour, including speech act theory
and conversational analysis.
Not only Peirce (1955), Jakobson (1960), and Widdowson (1988)
talking about style, but Barthes as well has done any studies on semiotic
dichotomies which relates to the cultural concept of language style. According
to Barthes (1971: 6), two semiotic dichotomies have traditionally determined
the concept of style, content vs form (style as elocution, ornament or ‘dress’;
thus form) and code vs message (style as a deviation of message from the
coded norm). In both cases, style is concerned with some semiotics
differences, be it an addition or a deviation (cf Noth, 1990: 344).
There will be a different view as proposed by Short. He emphasizes
more on goals, not on aspects of the process alone. For him, stylistic
analysis, unlike more traditional forms of practical criticism, is not interested
primarily in coming up with new and startling interpretations of the texts it
examines. Rather, its main aim is to explicate how our understanding of a text
is achieved, by examining in detail the linguistic organization of a text and
how a reader needs to interact with that linguistic organization to make sense
of it. Often, such a detailed examination of a text does reveal new aspects of
interpretation or helps us to see more clearly how a text achieves what it
does. But the main purpose of stylistics is to show how interpretation is
achieved, and hence provide support for a particular view of the work under
discussion. (Short, 1995: 53)
Style in any context – but more particularly in the verbal, linguistic and
literary context – has generally been defined rather vaguely and subjectively,
so Short’s practical way of looking at the issue is salutary.
1. Stylistic in Pragmatic Discourse
In relation to stylistics in pragmatic discourse (literary text), the study
of iconicity and rhetoric are being a part of the correlation two fields;
semiotics and stylistics. Peirce’s semiotics system (firstness) is more
preferred applied to this study, while the rhetoric will be made use of
theory of rhetoric as proposed by Noth (1999).
In the pragmatic discourse (literary text) cohesion and context are
determined. There is no discourse analysis without relating to cohesion
and contexts and it is the gate in the features at analyzing the style. It will
deal with treat the play as a text and discourse and stylistics is the way to
analyze it.
Leech (1981: 79) stated that [..] under cohesion ways in which one
part of a text is linked to another are considered. Stylistics, the study of
the relation between linguistic form and literary function (Leech and Short,
1984: 4). Furthermore, the study of the language used by an author--can
lead the way to a better understanding of the author's meaning and a fuller
appreciation of his literary skill (Brook, 1970:131).
In the study of literary text, iconicity and rhetorical figure are two
aspects that can be put together in conjunction to see the style of the
author in creating his works. In study of semiotics and of stylistics
perspective, the position of iconicity and rhetoric can be seen in the chart
Figure 5. Iconicity and Rhetoric in Semiotics and Stylistics
Style is the author's words and the characteristic way that writer
uses language to achieve certain effects. An important part of interpreting
and understanding fiction is being attentive to the way the author uses
words and other expression. What effects, for instance, do word choice
and sentence structure have on a story and its meaning? How does the
author use imagery, figurative devices, repetition, or allusion and so on? In
what ways does the style seem appropriate or discordant with the work's
subject and theme? They are varied. Some common styles might be
labeled ornate, plain, emotive, scientific, or whatnot. Most writers have
their own particular styles, thus we speak of the "Hemingway style",
"Dickensian style or Shakespeare style. In Saussurean concept it would
be ‘parole of a work’.
2. Stylistics in Drama Dialogues
There is a great deal of differences between a play and other kinds
of literary genre; that is a play (drama) is composed by dialogue. There is
no play without dialogue. The power of play is dialogue. In other words,
play (drama) like other form of literary works, it imitates life through action
and speech
Dialogue, according to Barnet, et. al, may be defined in two. Firstly,
a literary work in the form of a conversation, as Plato’s dialogue, which are
allegedly records of Socrate’s conversation on philosophical problems,
Secondly, the speech exchanged between characters, or, very, loosely,
even the thoughts of a single character, in any literary work. (Barnet,,
1964: 47-48)
Another distinguishing trait of drama, McMullan in Rahman (1999:
18-19) is the fact that the playwright can not directly describe person,
‘places, sounds, sights, smells - upon which both fiction and poetry heavily
depend [..]’. Moreover, drama, because of the physical limitations of the
stage, is restricted in its locale, while fiction and poetry can range over the
face of the earth. The playwright may not comment directly on the
situations, actions, or meanings in the play, he must convey his thoughts
by implication. In order to communicate these implications he must
present his dialogues, characters, and plot with such clarity and emphasis
that they can be understood in the rapid action of the stage performance.
Stylistic, in drama dialogue, is mainly concerned with the idea and
framework of style, the analysis of literary text (including dialogues in
drama), the application of linguistic to analyze literary texts. This approach
is very possible since the media of literary work is the language, and
authors in using language is to implement typical style that characterizes
his work. In characterizing the characters, the author gives each character
the ability to interact with one another through a dialogue. Drama is a work
that relies on dialogue
3. Language and Literary Works
Language is literary medium. The more the readers understand the
language, the better they can understand the literary works. Today, the
study of literary works is not only focused on inner elements, such as
characters, theme, setting, etc. and the external aspect such as
biography, psychology, sociology, history, etc. but it also the most
important one that the language. Linguistic frame work is used as a basis
for understanding and appreciation
Language and literary work (of literary) are subjects which maybe
studied in relation to two disciplines; linguistics and literary criticism.
Stylistics is said to be an area of mediation between the two disciplines.
How far such a mediation is necessary or desirable is a phenomenon to
keep beyond the scope of this point. Furthermore, stylistics can provide a
way of mediating between two subjects; English (language) and literature
(plays), leaving inexplicit whatever implications arise the way it might
serve relate the disciplines from which these subjects derive their content.
The relationships that have been shown above might be expressed
as follows;
Figure 6. Stylistics as Mediation of Disciplines
The diagram seeks to capture the fact that stylistics is neither a
discipline nor a subject in its own right, but it is a means of relating
disciplines and subjects.
Stylistics, of course, cannot be pursued successfully without a
thorough grounding in general linguistics, since precisely one of its central
concerns is the contrast of the language system of a literary work of art
with the general usage of the time. Without knowledge of what is common
speech, even unliterary speech, and what are the different social
languages of a time, stylistics can scarcely transcend impressionism. The
assumption that, especially for past periods, we know the distinction
between common speech and artistic deviation is, regrettably, quite
unfounded (Wellek and Warren, 1978: 177)
In relation to the analysis of the language of the play, not only does
the language the character speaking characterize him, but his language
when speaking to others also sheds a great deal of light on his
personality. If a man speaks one way to his master and another to his
underling we can draw various conclusions. If there is a wide disparity
between the kind of language used in soliloquies presented usually with a
host of implications (Reaske, 1966: 47).
On the other hand, it cannot be emphasized too many times that
the language of any given characters is extremely central to his
personality attributes. Not only must we pay close attention to the kind of
words that the character uses, but also we must be careful to remember
how the character speaks. Is s/he impassioned? Does he speak in quiet,
timorous way? Does he speak rapidly or does he speak in long drawnout-sight? In short, the way a character speaks and expressions he uses
should always be our first concern. This aspect of character as well as the
critics is well aware of this truth (Ibid, 1966: 47-48).
Widdowson (1988: 47) argues that what seems crucial to the
character of literature is that the language of a literary work should be
fashioned into pattern over and above of those required by the actual
language system. Whether the components of these patterns are deviant
or non-deviant or both are of secondary importance.
Language is quite literally the material of literary artist. Every
literary work, one could say, is merely a selection from a given language,
just as a work of sculpture has been described as a block of marble with
some pieces chipped off (Wellek and Warren, 1978: 174).
According to Wellek and Warren (Ibid) the mere fact it is possible to
write only a history of ideas but a history also of genres, metrical patterns,
demonstrates that literature cannot be completely dependent on
language. Obviously, one must also draw a distinction between poetry on
the one hand and the novel and the drama on the other.
Furthermore, Short (1981: 200) explains that literary texts like plays
are an interesting source of data for the discourse analyst and can be
used, given an understanding of important differences like the embedded
nature of their discourse, for testing theories about conversation. This is
particularly the case of accounts like that of Grice. In ordinary
conversation a characterization of the relevant contextual factors for
understanding discourse is often difficult, but in play texts is variable of
situational context is more closely controlled and hence more amenable to
examination. Similarly in drama notion like co-operation, seriousness and
so on, which are implicit in everyday conversation, are often explicitly
negotiated by the characters or demonstrated by the playwright. Drama is
thus an extremely interesting case. It is enough like conversation for
discourse analysis to apply fruitfully, and its artificial features, like the
control of situational variables, make it potentially convenient test-bed for
discourse theories. These considerations also make it a useful tool for
another kind of applied linguistics, the teaching of English as a foreign
The comparison of dramatic texts with recorded conversation could
be used as a way to highlight what goes on in casual conversation. The
discussion of what is meant, implied, etc. by characters in dramatic
dialogues could also be used in class to make students explicitly aware of
the communicative of discourse. Mastery of the Grecian marxims would
seem to be essential in foreign learner is going to be able to understand
English well and fit in socially when using English himself. This factor is
extremely important, as without the confidence so important for good
linguistic performance is likely to be undermined.
4. Stylistics and Discourse Analysis
Stylistics is a development of the use of linguistics in literary
criticism. It is an approach that mediates and incorporates the mechanical
nature of linguistics analysis and the artistic value of literary criticism.
Widdowson (1988: 3) states that “by stylistics I mean the study of
literary discourse from a linguistic orientation and I shall take the view that
what distinguishes stylistics from literary criticism on the one hand and
linguistic on the other is that it is essentially a means of linking the two and
has (as yet at least) no autonomous domain of its own.
Furthermore, Guerin et. al (1979: 286) explained that stylistics,
defined in a most rudimentary way, is not the study of the words and
grammar an author uses, but the study of the way the author uses his
words and grammar as well as other element both within the sentence
(where some would see it) and within the text as a whole.
Another explanation is given by Leech and Short. They state that
stylistics, as the study of relation between linguistic form and literary
function, cannot be reduced to mechanical objectivity. Both the literary
and linguistic sphere much rest on the intuition and personal judgement of
the readers, for which a system, however good, is an aid rather than a
substitute (Leech and Short, 1984: 4).
In addition, Peter Verdonk (2002: 3-4) states that stylistics is
concerned with the study of style in language in which such a style
specifically makes reference to a distinctive manner of expression; style in
language can be defined as distinctive linguistic expression. Verdonk
questions what sort of style it is now produced and can be recognised and
whether this is a general feature of language. He concludes that stylistics
can be defined as the analysis of distintive expression in language and the
description of its purpose and effect.
Recalling to a piece of literature, a play for example, the linguist will
be interested in finding out how it exemplifies the language system, or the
language style used by its author, and if it contains curiosities of usage
how these curiosities might be accounted for in grammatical terms. This is
not to say that linguist will necessarily ignore the meaning which the play
conveys and indeed, it may be well be the case that the linguist’s analysis
of the language of a play is about. But although interpretation may be an
aid to his analysis it is not its aims. To state once again, the purpose of
stylistics (Widdowson, 1988: 5-6) is to link the two approaches by
extending the linguist’s literary intuitions and the critic’s linguistic
observation and making their relationship explicit as mentioned before.
The relation between stylistics and discourse analysis is very tight.
Both is to explore language in their analysis to get a good understanding
of what way they analyze. The difference lies on their objects of analysis.
Discourse analysis take all kinds of discourse as its objects, spoken or
written, and discuss more on the linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects,
while stylistics specialize on literary discourse and get deeper into the
discourse to reveal the literary values.
Comparing with other approaches in analyzing literary work,
stylistic analysis is something new; and much of the early work which has
taken place, while valuable for its stimulus and initiative, is suspect. There
are a number of reasons for this. In the first place, the categories which
have been set up to account for the features, or set of features, in the
language data frequently inconsistently used, are incomplete, and usually
have no adequate formal basis. In the fact the majority of the situations
claimed to be stylistically distinctive have hardly been studied at all from
the linguistic point of view, and many of the labels used are vague in the
extreme (i.e. literature). Further, in the published work on the subject,
there seem to be many hidden assumptions that can be seriously
questioned, for example, that there is a one-for-one correlation between
linguistic features and situation, or that the language can be predicted
from the language with the same degree or certainly. Finally, we find a
great deal of difficulty in understanding the use of such terms as restricted
language, norm, discourse, standard and situation in the literature. Often a
word is used. In both an everyday and a specialist sense, without
difference being explicitly recognized (Crystal and Davy, 1986: 61-62).
The statement above is closely related to what Carter and Simpson
(1989: 13) simplify in their book Language, Discourse, and Literature that
stylistics [..] may be regarded simply as the variety of discourse analysis
dealing with literary discourse. But it should be emphasized that the study
of literary language of the entry door to go through stylistics.
Now it is clear that discourse analysis is an analysis of language in
use. It is an analysis how linguistic categories and context work together
to create a meaningful coherent discourse. Cook (1990: ix) claims that
discourse analysis is the search of what gives a discourse analysis
examines how stretches of language, considered in their full social,
textual, and psychological context become meaningful and unified for their
users (Ibid, 1990: ix)
On the other hand, Coulthard (1981: 170) stated that like all other
branches of applied linguistic; as the techniques of discourse analysis
become more sophisticated and more widely recognized we can expect
their growing exploitation in stylistics.
Furthermore, literature is the art form realized entirely through
language and although evaluation and interpretation is the province of the
literary critics it is reasonable to suggest that a detailed analysis of an
authorical technique and stylistics feature can be more successfully
achieved within a rigorous linguistics framework (Ibid)
The literary critic is primarily concerned with messages and his
interest in codes lies in the meanings they convey in particular instance of
use. The linguist, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the codes
themselves and particular messages are of interest in so far as they
exemplify how the codes are constructed (Widdowson, 1988: 5).
However, we cannot conclude that stylistics theory has reached a
stage where it would do well to wait for practical analysis to catch up, so
that the theoretical categories may be tested and carried out.
Consequently, further theorizing is kept to minimum; we are mainly
concerned to established certain central notions that do not seem to have
been sufficiently rigorous defined and verified hitherto (Crystal and Davy,
1986: 62).
E. Shakespeare’s Plays
William Shakespeare's plays have the reputation of being among
the greatest in the English language and in Western literature.
Traditionally, the 38 plays are divided into the genres of tragedy, history,
and comedy; they have been translated into every major living language,
in addition to being continually performed all around the world.
Many of his plays appeared in print as a series of quartos, but
approximately half of them remained unpublished until 1623, when the
posthumous First Folio was published. The traditional division of his plays
into tragedies, comedies and histories follows the categories used in the
First Folio. However, modern criticism has labeled some of these plays
"problem plays" which elude easy categorization, or perhaps purposely
break generic conventions, and has introduced the term romances for
what scholars believe to be his later comedies.
The categorization that used in this research is based on the
common distribution of Shakespeare’s plays that have been generally
accepted. The common distribution of Shakespeare's plays is shown in
appendix 2.
1. Style
During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal
means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of
various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy
and educated and the poor and illiterate. Shakespeare served his
dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan period, in the
years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height
of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War.
His verse style, his choice of subjects, and his stagecraft all bear the
marks of both periods. His style changed not only in accordance with his
own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of
the audiences for whom he wrote.
While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose,
he almost always wrote a large proportion of his plays and poems in
iambic pentameter. In some of his early works (like Romeo and Juliet), he
even added punctuation at the end of these iambic pentameter lines to
make the rhythm even stronger. He and other dramatists at the time used
this form of blank verse for a lot of the dialogue between characters in
order to elevate drama to new poetic heights.
To end many scenes in his plays he used a rhyming couplet for
suspense. A typical example is provided in Macbeth: as Macbeth leaves
the stage to murder Duncan (to the sound of a chiming clock), he says,
Hear it not Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell.
( Act II scene 1, 64 -65.)
Shakespeare's writing (especially his plays) also feature extensive
wordplay in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are
repeatedly used. Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays.
Although a large amount of his comical talent is evident in his comedies,
some of the most entertaining scenes and characters are found in
tragedies such as Hamlet and histories such as Henry IV, Part 1.
Shakespeare's humor was largely influenced by Plautus.
2. Soliloquies in Plays
Shakespeare's plays are also notable for their use of soliloquies, in
which a character makes a speech to him- or herself so the audience can
understand the character's inner motivations and conflict.
In his book Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies, Hirsh
(2003: 9) defines the convention of a Shakespearean soliloquy in early
modern drama. He argues that when a person on the stage speaks to
himself or herself, they are characters in a fiction speaking in character;
this is an occasion of self-address. Furthermore, Hirsh points out that
Shakespearian soliloquies and "asides" are audible in the fiction of the
play, bound to be overheard by any other character in the scene unless
certain elements confirm that the speech is protected. Therefore, a
Renaissance playgoer who was familiar with this dramatic convention
would have been alert to Hamlet's expectation that his soliloquy be
overheard by the other characters in the scene. Moreover, Hirsh asserts
that in soliloquies in other Shakespearian plays, the speaker is entirely in
character within the play's fiction. Saying that addressing the audience
was outmoded by the time Shakespeare was alive, he "acknowledges few
occasions when a Shakespearean speech might involve the audience in
recognizing the simultaneous reality of the stage and the world the stage
is representing." Other than 29 speeches delivered by choruses or
characters who revert to that condition as epilogues. Some critics
recognize only three instances of audience address in Shakespeare's
plays, 'all in very early comedies, in which audience address is introduced
specifically to ridicule the practice as antiquated and amateurish (cf Perng,
2008: 204-208).
3. Source Material of the Plays
As was common in the period, Shakespeare based many of his
plays on the work of other playwrights and recycled older stories and
historical material. His dependence on earlier sources was a natural
consequence of the speed at which playwrights of his era wrote; in
addition, plays based on already popular stories appear to have been
seen as more likely to draw large crowds. There were also aesthetic
reasons: Renaissance aesthetic theory took seriously the dictum that
tragic plots should be grounded in history. This structure did not apply to
comedy, and those of Shakespeare's plays for which no clear source has
been established, such as Love's Labour's Lost and The Tempest, are
comedies. Even these plays, however, rely heavily on generic
commonplaces. For example, Hamlet (c.1601) may be a reworking of an
older, lost play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet), and King Lear is likely an
adaptation of an older play, King Lier. For plays on historical subjects,
Shakespeare relied heavily on two principal texts. Most of the Roman and
Greek plays are based on Plutarch's Parallel Lives (from the 1579 English
translation by Sir Thomas North, and the English history plays are
indebted to Raphael Holinshed's 1587 Chronicles.
While there is much dispute about the exact Chronology of
Shakespeare plays, as well as the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the
plays tend to fall into three main stylistic groupings. The first major
grouping of his plays begins with his histories and comedies of the 1590s.
Shakespeare's earliest plays tended to be adaptations of other
playwright's works and employed blank verse and little variation in rhythm.
However, after the plague forced Shakespeare and his company of actors
to leave London for periods between 1592 and 1594, Shakespeare began
to use rhymed couplets in his plays, along with more dramatic dialogue.
These elements showed up in The Taming of the Shrew and A
Midsummer Night's Dream. Almost all of the plays written after the plague
hit London are comedies, perhaps reflecting the public's desire at the time
for light-hearted fare. Other comedies from Shakespeare during this
period include Much Ado About Nothing, The Merry Wives of Windsor and
As You Like It.
The middle grouping of Shakespeare's plays begins in 1599 with
Julius Caesar. For the next few years, Shakespeare would produce his
most famous dramas, including Macbeth, Hamlet, and King Lear. The
plays during this period are in many ways the darkest of Shakespeare's
career and address issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power and
The final grouping of plays, called Shakespeare's late romances,
include Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale and The
Tempest. The romances are so called because they bear similarities to
medieval romance literature. Among the features of these plays are a
redemptive plotline with a happy ending, and magic and other fantastic
elements. The distribution of Shakespeare’s plays, as used in this study
can be seen in Appendix 2.
4. A Note on Shakespeare’s Language
This section is about a note on Shakespeare’s language. As we
realize the reputation of Shakespeare is around 1591-1611 where English
was in the transitional period, of 1066-1450, to Modern English (it was
stated 1450 in the history of English language). This fact at once shows
that English used by Shakespeare in his works were English as spoken at
that time, that is transitional English, (the early period of modern English)
and consequently, a lot of literary contemporary critics had difficulties in
exploring the works of Shakespeare (language problem) either because
they are no longer in ordinary use or because they are used by him in
some way that is not now familiar
In the history of the English language, during the 15th century,
Middle English language changed further. This change is referred to as
the Great Vowel Shift, and starting with the deployment of the London
dialect of English which came into use by the government and the
emergence of print books. Modern English language itself can be said to
arise in the William Shakespeare. Famous author of the Middle English
period is Geoffrey Chaucer was with his famous of The Canterbury Tales.
Starting from the 15th century, English became a Modern English,
which often began with the Great vowel shift. After that the English began
to take the words of many charges of foreign languages, especially Latin
and Greek since the Renaissance. Because many words borrowed from
different languages, and English spelling can be said to be inconsistent,
then the risk of one's words spelling high enough. But the remnants of the
forms of a more ancient still exist in some regional dialects, especially in
the dialects in the West Country. In 1755 Samuel Johnson (Bloomfield,
1981) published the first important English dictionary, entitled Dictionary of
the English Language (Ibid, 1981).
After English absorbing a lot of foreign language words, the English
used in Shakespeare's works further and further are away from the
modern English language as we know it today. Realizing this, it would
require a note on Shakespeare's language in his literary works.
According to C.T. Onion in Fletcher (1956: 179), among the former
are such word as ballow cudgel, phill-horse shaft-horse, and neaf fist,
which are now only provincial, and such others as benison blessing,
foison abundance, mow grimace, parlous dangerous, puissant powerful,
teen grief, which may be found still in literary diction, as well as a
considerable number that have been used, so far as we know, by
Shakespeare alone. With such as these we become acquainted by
reference to glossaries and notes. (for further information, look at
appendix 3).
Recall to the Shakespeare's language, this topic includes two
things: i) grammatical forms and ii) connotation. Grammatical forms
include a) pronouns, b) verb conjugation. As for the emotional
connotations regarding the situation, and the use of thou or you broke the
expected conventions. For instance Thou Commonly Expressed special
intimacy or affection; while you, formality, politeness, and distance. In
other words, Thou could also be used, even by an inferior to a superior, to
express feelings such as anger and contempt.
a) Pronoun
The language of Shakespeare merely around Old English and
Middle English. In Old English, for instance thou (and its related forms)
was used only for addressing one person; but ye (and its related forms) is
for more than one. Within these categories, thou and ye were used as
clause subject, thee and you as object. Those are seen in Shakespeare’s
drama. Around Middle English (in during), ye / you came to be used as a
polite singular form alongside thou/thee, a situation which was probably
influenced by French vous vs tu. that’s quite glarious at that time.
Shakespeare's period] the distinction between subject and object uses of
ye and you gradually disappeared, and you became the norm in all
grammatical functions and social situations as well. Word Ye continued in
use, but by the end of the 16th century it was restricted to archaic,
religious, or literary contexts. In the history of English language, By 1700,
the thou forms were also largely restricted in this way."
In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, ed.
David Crystal (1995: 71) figured the pronoun of English in early Modern
English as follows;
Table 2. The Pronoun of English in Early Modern English
b) Verb Conjugations
It is important to know the language that Shakespeare used in
his work. Based on the facts of English history, not just pronouns which
evolved but also verb conjugation. Crystal (1995: 71) did a relist as the
table below.
Table 3. The Verb Conjugation of English in Early Modern English
to be
to have
to do
to see
to grow
thou art
thou wert
I have
I had
thou hast
thou hadst
I do
I did
thou dost
thou didst
does / doth
thou seest
3rd person/
I am
I was
"By the time of Shakespeare, pronoun you had developed the
number of ambiguity it retains today, being used for either singular or
plural; but in the singular it also had a role as an alternative to thou / thee.
It was used by people of lower rank or status to those above them (such
as ordinary people to nobles, children to parents, servants to masters,
nobles to the monarch), and was also the standard way for the upper
classes to talk to each other.
By contrast, thou / thee were used by people of higher rank to
those beneath them, and by the lower classes to each other; also, in
elevated poetic style, in addressing God, and in talking to witches, ghosts,
and other supernatural beings. There were also some special cases: for
example, a husband might address his wife as thou, and she replies with
F. The Intersection of Supporting Theories
The following is the presentation of a number of theories concerning
with the theories used to support this research. Peircean Theory of Iconicity
(as a grand theory) underlying other theories. Then the theory of Textual
Meaning of Halliday and the Theory of Poetics Function (Equivalence) of
Roman Jakobson are used as a supporting theory. The thiree theories are
applied to the intersection with each other.
1. Peircean Theory of Iconicity
Peircean trichotomy of sign, which the researcher applies as a grand
theory of discussion, Peirce divides signs in relation to their objects into three
types; icons, indices, and symbols (Hirga, 1994: 6). An icon is defined as a
sign which represents an object mainly by its similarity to that object; an index
is a sign which represents by its existential relation to the object; and a
symbol as a sign which siginifies its object by law or a convention.
Icons, as mentined before, are divided further into three subtypes,
images, diagrams and metaphors, based on the degree of abstraction as well
as the dominance of characteristic of similarity such as mimicry, analogy and
parallelism. Image (e.g. a portrait of a person) achieve similarity by partaking
of some of the simple qualities of its object (e.g., the person portrayed). The
relation between the image and its object is based on monadic, simple,
sensory or mimetic resemblance. Diagram (e.g. maps and floor plans) exihibit
a structure analogous to the structure of their object (e.g. territories and
buildings). Diagrams show relation of the parts of object by analogous
relations in their own parts. The similarity between the diagram and its object
is a dyadic, relational or structural analogy. Metaphor represents a parallelism
in something else. A metaphorical icon (e.g. “My love is a rose”) siginifies its
object (e.g. “my love” and something else (e.g. “a rose”) The immediacy of
sign-object link decreases from images to diagrams, from diagrams to
metaphors. At the same time, an icon may involve all these subtypes with
predominance of one over the others (Hiraga, 1994: 6-7)
The following table is the summarizes the main charaterstic of the
subtypes of icons with possible manifestation in language to see the iconic
forces of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare’s works.
Table 4. Subtypes of Icon According to Peirce
How similarity is
Partakes of some
of simple qualities
of its object
Exhibits the
Represents a
abstract structure parallelism in
of its object
something else
Similarity in
Dyadic structural
or relational
Manifestation in
sound symbolism
asymmetry, etc.
transfer from one
domain to
(Source; Hiraga, 1994: 7)
The more detailed subtypes of iconic forces found might be traced in the
application for analyzing literary works (especially Drama) can be seen in the
following figure.
Figure 7. The subtypes of Icons According to Peirce’s Theory
The subtypes described above will be the topics of discussion with the
analysis. Likewise, the uses of detailed points were expected would also
require special discussion in chapter IV, Finding and Discussion.
2. Halliday’s Theory
Michael A. K. Halliday is very famous with his Functional Theory.
Halliday has also underlined the links between learning language, learning
though language and learning about language. Theme-Rheme of textual
meaning is one of my concerns.
At first he developed systemic functional linguistics. It is an approach
to linguistics that considers language as a social semiotic system. Halliday in
a certain sense "liberated" the dimension of choice from structure and made it
the central organising dimension of this theory. In other words, whereas many
approaches to linguistic description place structure and the syntagmatic axis
in the foreground, Hallidaean systemic functional theory adopts the
paradigmatic axis as its point of departure. The term systemic accordingly
foregrounds Saussure's "paradigmatic axis" in understanding how language
works. For Halliday, a central theoretical principle is then that any act of
communication involves choices. Language is a system, and the choices
available in any language variety are mapped using the representation tool of
the "system network".
Systemic functional linguistics is also "functional" because it considers
language to have evolved under the pressure of the particular functions that
the language system has to serve. Functions are therefore taken to have left
their mark on the structure and organisation of language at all levels, which is
said to be achieved via metafunction. The term metafunction is particular to
systemic functional linguistics. For Halliday, all languages involve three
generalised functions, or metafunction; one construes experience (meanings
about the outer and inner worlds); one enacts social relations (meanings
concerned with interpersonal relations), and one weaves together of these
two functions to create text (the wording). Because these functions are
considered to come into being simultaneously—viz., one cannot mean about
the world without having either a real or virtual audience—language must also
be able to bring these meanings together: this is the role of structural
organisation, be that grammatical, semantic or contextual. These three
generalised functions are termed "metafunctions".
The point of departure for Halliday's work in linguistics has been the
simple question: "how does language work?". Across his career he has
probed the nature of language as a social semiotic system; that is, as a
resource for meaning across the many and constantly changing contexts of
human interaction. Halliday has tried, then, to develop a linguistic theory and
description that is applicable to any context of human language. His theory
and descriptions are based on these principles, on the basis that they are
required to explain the complexity of human language. There are five
a. Paradigmatic dimension: Meaning is choice, i.e. users select from
"options that arise in the environment of other options", and that "the
power of language resides in its organisation as a huge network of
interrelated choices".
b. Stratification dimension. In the evolution of language from primary to
higher-order semiotic, "a space was created in which meanings could
be organized in their own terms, as a purely abstract network of
interrelations". Between the content of form-pairing of simple semiotic
lexicogrammar. This development put language on the road to
becoming an apparently infinite meaning-making system.
c. Metafunctional
complementarity". In other words, it has evolved under the human
need to make meanings about the world around and inside us, at the
same time that it is the means for creating and maintaining our
interpersonal relations. These motifs are two modes of meaning in
discourse—what Halliday terms the "ideational" and the "interpersonal"
metafunction. They are organised via a third mode of meaning, the
textual metafunction, which acts on the other two modes to create a
coherent flow of discourse.
d. Syntagmatic
structure laid down in time (spoken) or space (written). This structure
involves units on different ranks within each stratum of the language
system. Within the lexicogrammar, for example, the largest is the
clause, and the smallest the morpheme; intermediate between these
ranks are the ranks of group/phrase and of word.
e. Instantiation dimension. All of these resources are, in turn, "predicated
on the vector of instantiation", defined as "the relation between an
instance and the system that lies behind it". Instantiation is a formal
relationship between potential and actual. Systemic functional theory
assumes a very intimate relationship of continual feedback between
instance and system: thus using the system may change that system.
In this use of system, grammatical or other features of language are
considered best understood when described as sets of options. According to
Halliday, "the most abstract categories of the grammatical description are the
systems together with their options (systemic features). A systemic grammar
differs from other functional grammars (and from all formal grammars) in that
it is paradigmatic: a system is a paradigmatic set of alternative features, of
which one must be chosen if the entry condition is satisfied."
System was a feature of Halliday's early theoretical work on language;
it was regarded to be one of four fundamental categories for the theory of
grammar, the others being unit, structure and class. The category of system
was invoked to account for "the occurrence of one rather than another from
among a number of like events". At that time, Halliday defined grammar as
"that level of linguistic form at which operate closed systems".
Given this focus on patterns for meaning, a good way to start is with
whole text, not just words on a plate, to get a sense of how texts are
structured, varied and how they are built up of clauses, themselves for the
product of careful, conditioned co-selections of vocabulary. If you [we] start
from texts, then you begin with the main point. Grammar is about
communicative purposes, it is always contextualised to the particular social
participants (writer/readers and speakers/hearers). It is about turning words
intro messages, and it is always negotiable (the meaning, that is). To see how
flexible the patterns are take a look at the [..] the plays of Shakespeare, the
lyrics of Rolling Stones or your favorite tv ad). The point is that grammar is not
random and if you master the patterning potential, you can always say what
you mean and write what you intend to get across, and anyone else who
shares the code can get a handle on what you had in mind (Butt, 2001: vi).
3. Roman Jakobson’s Linguistics and Poetics Theory
One of the prominent theories applied to support this research is
Roman Jakobson’s Linguistics and Poetics Theory. Jakobson (Clarke, 2005:
1) argues that every oral or written verbal message or ‘speech act’ (parole)
has the following elements in common: the message itself, an addresser, an
addressee, a context (the social and historical context in which the utterance
is made), a contact (the physical channel and psychological connection that
obtains between addresser and addressee), and a code, common to both
addresser and addressee, which permits communication to occur. In
communication, we are not necessarily restricted to words as a result of
which anything can function semiotically: fashion, for example, can be a
statement. Hence, Jakobson (1960: 353) schematized six factors determine a
different function of language as in the following chart:
Figure 8. Process of Verbal Communication
This figure shows that each factor has a different function of language.
But the problem is how to find verbal messages that would fulfill only one
function. Note that the diversity lies not in a monopoly of some one of these
several functions but in a different hierarchical order of ones. The verbal
structure of a message, of course, depends primarily on the predominant
function. Eventhough a set toward the referent, an orientation toward the
context - briefly, the so-called referential, "denotative," "cognitive" function - is
the leading task of numerous messages.
Again, these six elements or ‘factors’ of communication, as mentioned
before, are aligned each with a different ‘function’ of language. In order to
complete the basic conception about the six basic functions of verbal
communication, from the scheme of the fundamental factors with a
corresponding scheme of the functions, it may be schematized as follows
Figure 9. Six Basic Functions of Verbal Communication
Clarke (2005: 2) presented a different schema. He included the aspect
of aesthetic parallel to the poetic. In other words, although any or all of these
functions may be present in any utterance, they vary in their importance as a
result of which one function is dominant over the rest. Where a particular
function dominates, the message is oriented towards the corresponding
factor. (Clarke, ibid: 1) In addition, Clarke proposed some key-notes as
when a message is emotive in function, it is designed to stress the
addresser’s response to a given situation arising in the context;
when it is conative, the stress is on the message’s impact upon the
when referential, the stress is on the message’s denotative or cognitive
purpose (what the message is about);
when poetic / aesthetic, the stress is on the form of the message itself
as a result of which the aesthetic purpose is predominant;
when phatic, the emphasis is on establishing that given channels of
communication are open and unimpeded;
when metalinguistic, the stress is on the code itself shared by
addresser and addressee, that is, the medium in which communication
occurs, as a result of which one metalanguage is used to comment on
and explain another language.
What was shown by Clarke is a reaction to the proposition of language
function as proposed by Jakobson (1960). He included a wide range of utility
function based on character of usefulness. The six functions of language are
as follows;
1) The Referential Function: corresponds to the factor of Message and
describes a situation, object or mental state. The descriptive statements of
the referential function can consist of both definite descriptions and
deictic words, e.g. "The autumn leaves have all fallen now."
2) The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective")
Function relates to the Addresser (sender) and is best exemplified by
interjection and other sound changes that do not alter the denotative
meaning of an utterance but do add information about the Addresser's
(speaker's) internal state, e.g. "Wow, what a view!"
3) The Conative Function: engages the Addressee (receiver) directly and is
best illustrated by vocatives and imperatives, e.g. "Tom! Come inside and
4) The Poetic Function: focuses on "the message for its own sake" (the
code itself, and how it is used) and is the operative function in poetry as well
as slogans.
5) The Phatic Function: is language for the sake of interaction and is
therefore associated with the Contact factor. The Phatic Function can be
observed in greetings and casual discussions of the weather, particularly with
strangers. It also provides the keys to open, maintain, verify or close the
communication channel: "Hello?", "Ok?", "Hummm", "Bye"...
6) The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic" or "reflexive")
Function: is the use of language (what Jakobson calls "Code") to discuss or
describe itself. (All this article is an example of metalinguistic Function).
Evidently, according to Clarke (2005: 2), depending upon the purpose
of a particular speech act, one of these functions will come to predominate
while the others remain subsidiary. Jakobson’s real goal here is to come to an
understanding of the precise nature of those speech acts which are called
poetry and, accordingly, to comprehend what ought to be involved in the
practice of literary criticism (what he terms ‘poetics’). Jakobson argues that
poetics is largely concerned with the question: ‘what makes any verbal
message a work of art?’ Given that any verbal behaviour is distinguished by
its specific aims and means, Jakobson argues, a work of art is a message in
which the poetic or aesthetic function dominates. As a result, the main focus
of poetics ought to be on the verbal structure of the message. Jakobson
concludes that since linguistics is the “science which deals with verbal
structure, poetics is best viewed as a sub division of linguistics” In this regard,
firstly, Jakobson points out that poetics deals with the dominance of the
poetic function in any form of discourse, poetry or not (e.g. the novel or
advertising jingles). Secondly, Jakobson warns that the “question of relations
between the word and the world” and, thus, the whole issue of “truth-values”
(the question of realism, in short) are extralinguistic concerns which
accordingly remain outside the province of purely literary analysis. Thirdly,
Jakobson asserts, poetics is a form of “objective scholarly analysis” that is not
reducible to those evaluative modes of criticism (whereby the critic’s opinions
and ideological purposes are foisted on the reader) with which poetics has
been misidentified over the years. Fourthly, it is Jakobson’s view that literary
analysis must come to terms with both the synchronic and the diachronic
dimension that inhere in literature. He has in mind here the “literary
production of any given stage” as well as “that part of the literary tradition
which for the stage in question has remained vital or has been revived”. From
this point of view, any “contemporary stage is experienced in its temporal
dynamics”. As a result, a “historical poetics” (i.e. a diachronic approach to the
study of literature) is a “superstructure ... built on a series of successive
synchronic descriptions”. The crucial question where poetry is concerned for
Jakobson is this: what is the “indispensable feature inherent in any piece of
poetry?” and which serves to distinguish poetry from other kinds of
utterances? Jakobson argues that, like any speech act or utterance, poetry is
a function of the two axes which Saussure terms the paradigmatic and
syntagmatic and which he himself respectively calls the metaphoric pole (the
axis of selection) and the metonymic pole (the axis of combination).
Meaningful communication occurs at the intersection of these two axes. For
example, if the ‘child’ is the subject of the message, the speaker selects one
among the extant, more or less similar, nouns like child, kid, youngster, tot, all
of them equivalent in a certain respect, and then .. .he may select one of the
semantically cognate verbs--sleeps, dozes, nods, naps. Both chosen words
combine in the speech chain”.
The selection is produced on the base of equivalence, similarity and
dissimilarity, synonymity and antonymity, while the combination, the buildup
of the sequence, is based on contiguity. Along the paradigmatic axis,
Jakobson is saying, each sign in a given sequence is selected by virtue of its
equivalence (that is, its similarity to some and difference from other signs in
the sign system). Along the syntagmatic axis, the signs chosen in this way are
combined with other signs according to the rules of syntax in order to form the
sequence of signs which comprise the utterance in question.
What precisely distinguishes poetry in general from other verbal
messages is the predominance of the poetic function. What distinguishes
poetry from other forms of literature (e.g. prose narrative) is that, in
Jakobson’s famous formula, the “poetic function projects the principle of
equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination”. Jakobson
contends that the principle of equivalence is promoted to the constitutive
device of the sequence (Clarke, 2005: 4).
According to Ricoeur, (1977: 169) Roman Jakobson’s interpretation of
the poetic function in language, in his famous remarks to an Interdisciplinary
Conference on Style provides the bridge between these fleeting remarks and
the more concentrated investigations of the neo-rhetoricians. After having
enumerated the six factors of communication – addresser, message,
addressee, context (which is or can be verbalized), common code, contact
(physical or psychic) – Jakobson enumerates functions in parallel fashion,
according to which factor dominates. In this way he defines the poetic
function as the function that puts the accent on the message for its own sake,
and he adds: ‘This function, by promoting the palpability of signs, deepens
the fundamental dichotomy of signs and objects’. The two spatial values
brought out above are interpreted here in a completely original fashion. On
the one hand, the notion of a contour, of a configuration of the message,
rising to top rank, is attached to a precise functioning of the signs in
messages of poetic quality, namely, a very particular interlacing of the two
fundamental modes in which signs are arranged – selection and combination.
Accordingly, with the introduction of two orthogonal axes in place of the
simple linearity of the spoken chain endorsed by de Saussure, it is possible to
describe the poetic function as a certain alteration in the relation between
these two axes. The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence,
which belongs to the selection axis, onto the axis of combination. In other
words, in the poetic function equivalence is promoted to the rank of
constitutive procedure of the sequence. Thus, recurrence of the same phonic
figures, rhymes, parallels, and other related procedures in some way
introduce a semantic resemblance.
G. Conceptual Framework
In order to make clear the procedure used to do this research, the
framework (flow chart) of this research is constructed as follows;
Shakespeare’s Plays
Literary Text
Kinds of
Poetics Function
and Theme-Rheme
& External
and Theme-Rheme
Iconic Forces of
Rhetorical Figures
Figure 10. Flow Chart of Conceptual Frame Work
The focus of this study is the iconic forces of rhetorical figure through
the linkage of two disciplines; semiotics and stylistics. Semiotics is to focus on
the iconic aspects while the stylistics is to focus on aspects of rhetoric. In this
case, there are three basic approaches; "rhetorical appeals" where one can
use to make a convincing argument. They include these three items: i. logos
(using logical arguments such as induction and deduction), ii pathos (creating
an emotional reaction in the audience), and iii ethos (projecting a trustworthy,
authoritative, or charismatic image)
These three items will be related to balancing logic, emotion, and
charisma, where the rhetors must have to adapt the argument, tone, and
approach for the specific audience. In practice, rhetoric also involves what are
often called "the flowers of rhetoric.” These include schemes (rhetorical
devices that involve artful patterns in sentence structure) and tropes
(rhetorical devices involving shifts in the meaning or use of words).
In relation to the aspect of iconicity, the discussion on the iconic forces
of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's plays aims at showing how rhetorical
iconicity may mirror perceptions and conceptions of reality while other imitate
emotional states, and other reflect logical operations. This is the right way to
find the distinction between 'endophoric' and 'exophoric' iconicity broadly
understood to analyze examples of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's plays.
Therefore, the theory applied in this study is used to analyze the data,
which in turn is used again to interrogate theory; the finding of this research
will be illustrated as the following figure;
Figure 11. Kinds (Characters) of Iconicity in Shakespeare’s Plays
H. Operational Definitions
The following is the operational definitions of this study due to several
concept or technical terms used for clarifying the significant meaning in order
to avoid misinterpretation
1. literary text is a selected of Shakespeare’s plays as the sampling object of
the study
2. schemes and tropes are rhetorical figures atributed to the data corpus (of
the decontextualisation of the sampling text) of Shakespeare’s works
3. poetics function and theme-rheme theory are the combination of the
theories applied to find the topic of the message
4. kind of iconicity is iconicity grouping by type, character, shape and
properties of iconic in the discussion
5. internal and external iconicity are the categorization of characteristic
iconicity found based the kins of iconicity.
This chapter deals with the frame of the research; design of research,
procedure of collecting data, source of data (population and sample),
technique of data analysis, and operational definition
A. Design of Research
This research will identify the topic thoroughly about the “Iconic Forces
of Rhetorical Figures in Shakespeare’s Plays”. In order to achieve the certain
purposes, the following steps and procedures methodologically are
1. to examine carefully the general use of style used by Shakespeare in
constructing his literary works. Observation was made by data
gathered on both primary and secondary data support.
2. to detect the use of figures that contains elements of iconicity and
rhetoric figure. This step is performed based on the assumption that
not all of Shakespeare's style contains elements of iconicity and
rhetoric figure. Upon completion of this step, the research moves to the
following steps
3. to separate these figures into two parts, a) one part that contains
elements of iconicity and rhetoric, and b) other part that does not
contain ones. These ones will be isolated (data reduction),
4. to attribute or code elements of coding iconicity and rhetoric figure into
the category exophory and endepory.
5. to verify or to detect results performed in the previous stage (especially
in relation to style)
6. to describe the use of language that has elements of iconicity and
rhetoric figure.
7. to outline a tentative conclusion
After all these steps are completed, the next step is to conduct the
analysis which will be displayed on the finding and discussion (chapter IV).
The steps mentioned above can be seen in the flow chart (figure 12) below;
Figure 12: Mapping of Design of Research
The writer assumed that adopting and adapting the general principles
of corpus analysis (as shown the steps above), it will develop a bottom-up
strategy, looking at instances of language first in order to arrive at
generalizations about the significance of certain patterns and then use a topdown approach for other points. By doing this procedure, theoretical
construction happens.
The writer also believes this new approach (it is more clearly said
procedure) may bring new kinds of evidence that may help further
researchers validate and privilege certain interpretations and perhaps even
arrive at interpretations never offered before
B. Procedure of Collecting Data
The research data is sourced from several literary works, as already
mentioned beforehand. Some of the procedures and methods of data
collection are formulated as follows:
1. read the objects carefully as the primary data source
2. identify the dialogues, who speaks to whom, and what the speaks
intend to
3. identify the part of the events, the relationship between speech
events and characters action related to the topic
4. listing the conceptual points as preliminary semiosis and style data
5. listing ‘specific expression, keywords, symbol, name of places,
proper name, and terms found in each works
6. identify ‘difficult words’ (early modern English) that belong to the
mostly applied in Shakespeare’s plays
7. building relationships paradigmatic and syntagmatic of processed
8. listing of the gathered raw data in documentary sheet (the corpus
data presented with index number)
9. arranging the reference quotations in a row under the quotation;
title (in abbreviation), act, scene, and lines.
Primary data is the data obtained from works intrinsically, to support
the primary data, this study also made use of secondary data from extrinsic
element of the works. Thus, this study applies both literary study and
semantic one, which may lead the researches to reach the objective of this
Form of this study is a qualitative descriptive one by using the
approach of structural and semantic of the works. The main data sources
(primary data) of this study come from a number of Shakespeare’s plays.
Data collection techniques performed using analysis of documents (plays).
The validity of data sources is done by using check and recheck method. This
is also called "cross examination”. Data analysis using flow analysis consists
of three components, namely data reduction, data presentation, and data
verification as well as tentative conclusions.
C. Source of Data
Descriptive research involves a collection of technique used to specify,
delineate, or describe naturally occurring phenomena without experimental
manipulation. The source of data of this research is divided into two
categories, they are population and sample. The main of primary data are
taken from the texts of Shakespeare’s plays. The primary and the only source
of primary data are gathered from “The Complete Works of Shakespeare,
published 2008 by Gedded & Grossel, David Dale House, New Lamark,
In addition to the primary data sources, this study is also supported by
the secondary data (the so-called supporting data); taken from reviews,
notes, quotations, journal, articles, periodical, internet sources and e-books
which are relevant.
1. Population
This study population is the works of Shakespeare are scattered in
various sources with the work of, as many as, 38 plays which are divided
into the genres of tragedy, history, and comedy (see Appendix 2).
2. Sample
This research is a purposive one. This study is descriptive in
nature. The primary data, perhaps, being spread over in every work. Since
the study is to reach and maintain the integrity of the data, this study will
not be conducted with a total sampling, rather than taking out samples
purposively. There are some criteria used to take a sample. The
considerations are as follows:
1. the works have a great achievement, and admitted by most literary
critics and being a legacy of literary world,
2. the works supposed to be a representative one in the category of
Shakespeare’s works,
3. the works are mostly containing iconic forces where to meet the data
need for the object of this study.
As already mentioned before, the drama of Shakespeare are 38
works. They are Comedies 16 works, Tragedies 12 works, and Histories
10 works. However, in order to make the analysis more effective and
efficient, only nine of them are chosen as directed as criteria mentioned
before. The works are as follows;
Table 5. Sampling of Data Population of Shakespeare’s Plays
Title of Drama
King Richard II
King Henry V
Love’s Labour’s Lost
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
The Merchant of Venice
Romeo & Juliet
Julius Caesar
King Lear
Based on the consideration, 5 dramas are chosen, respectively 2
dramas of histories, 3 dramas of comedies, and 4 dramas of tragedies.
All the dramas are supposed containing the iconic forces were treated as
the samples. The samples are performed in the discussion. It is sure that
the data are selected since they are considered to be representative
enough to support the analysis of discussion
As mentioned before, the number of Shakespeare's plays are 38,
consisting works of history 10 works, comedy 16 works and tragedy 12
works, (coloum 1), withdrawal of sampling, history 2 works, comedy 3
works and tragedy 4 works. These works became the nine objects of
study for the iconic forces and rhetorical figures (coloum II). To do
something that is novelty, and then performed the sampling in the
sampling of each King Richard II is for History, A Midsummer Night’s
Dream is for Comedy, and Romeo & Juliet is for Tragedy. (coloum III).
Look at the following table;
Table 6. Selected Sampling of Data Population of Shakespeare’s
Play for Poetics Function Analysis and Theme-Rheme Theory
The three works as stated on coloum III are then analyzed with the
combination of Poetics Function analysis (Jakobson) and Theme-Rheme
Theory (Halliday).
D. Limitation of the study
The study of stylistics is quite broad and complex. By stylistic, the
researcher may find how language serves a particular artistic and produces
effect functions. This kind of stylistics study does not build phenomenon and
the structural rule of language but rather focuses on the phenomenon of
language uses, including the use of language in literary discourse.
In stylistics, we concern merely in the aspects of form or style in
contrast with aspects of content, i.e., stylistics are those features that
distinguish how certain writers (authors) write rather than what they write
about--such as sentence length, preferred rhetorical devices, tendencies in
diction, etc.
Iconic forces of rhetorical figures is not a style (style modes as we
understand in stylistics) but something that can be a characteristic of (or to
characterize) a style. Literary text for a literary criticism looks, or to place, a
text as a medium of style. However, the style in the literary text is the author's
words and the characteristic way that writer uses language to achieve certain
effects and beauty. In fact, in other words, not all styles have the iconic force
of rhetorical figures
It is important to declare an early clarification that this study lies under
the umbrella of literary discourse (literary text) are consecutive to the conical
on the iconic forces of rhetorical figure in Shakespeare’s plays. The limitation
of this study can be drawn in the following chart;
Figure 13. Iconicity and Rhetoric in Literary Texts
This study did not restrict itself from the types and forms of style, but
rather focuses on studies related to these aspects which is at least it has
elements of iconicity and rhetoric or both. Examples of each randomly are as
Example 1
Chiasmus is a word order in one clause is inverted in the other (inverted
parallelism). An example of chiasmus that reveals the tremendous iconic
potential rhetorical figures may have. In the famous statement of one of the
witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, a rhetorical structure iconises the
structure of a whole world.
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
This is usually quoted as an instance of chiasmus or antimetabole without
being subjected to indepth analysis. An examination of the line will show that
what looks so tricky or deceptively simple is, in fact, a rhetorically,
semantically, and epistemologically extremely complex statement. The line
combines different rhetorical schemes such as definition, antithesis,
chiasmus, and alliteration. It consists of two definitions, in which one term is
divined by --- or equated with --- its antonym. Since the second definition
referees the roles of definiendum and definience in the first definition, a
chiasmus is established. The key terms of the utterance are connected by
alliteration. What is of central importance is that Shakespeare’s equates the
antonyms. He does not say, ‘fair without, but foul within’ or ‘what seems fair is
in reality foul’. To repeat it once more --- since it is so important --- he
identifies antonyms. And this identification constitutes a paradox.
In Shakespeare’s identification of antonyms the world is reveal as a
total semantic and epistemological chaos, which is also a moral chaos. The
interpenetration of contradictory terms is reinforced by the chiastic structure of
the utterance and by alliteration which establishes a phonetic bond between
the keywords of the line. Shakespeare actually deconstructs the opposition of
fair and foul and it is the specific rhetorical form of the statement which
reveals a world view in which the opposition of appearance and reality or
seeming and being does not work any longer. While the line such is and
iconic expression of a whole world view, it is also related iconically to the
thematic structure of the play (Muller, 1991: 320).
Example 2
Anadiplosis is one form of schemes often used as an expression of
'encouragement', especially in drama of struggle. Excerpts below are good
examples of iconic. Consider the word 'sword' in the first line is repeated on
the second line, the word 'wounds’ on line three appears again on the fourth
line. The word 'yield on the fourth line is repeated again on fifth line, then
word yield’ on the fifth line repeated again in the sixth line, and word ‘conceits'
in the seventh line is repeated again in the eighth row and so on. According to
Earl Anderson (quoted by Muller, p. 315) … the rhetorical climax may be
understood as a structuring device, but its iconicity is clearly exophoric. The
irresistibility of a military victory and a triumph in love over a rival is mimed by
a series of anadiplosis.
First, in his hand he brandished a sword,
And with that sword he fiercely waged war
And in that war he gave me dangerous wounds,
And by those wounds he forced me to yield,
And by my yielding I became his slave,
Now in his mouth he carries pleasing words,
Which pleasing do harbor sweet conceits,
Which sweet conceits are limed with sly deceits
Which sly deceits smooth Bel-Imperia’s ears,
And through her ears dive down into her heart,
And in her heart set him where I should stand.
(a passage from Thomas Kyd’s The
Spanish tragedy (II.1.119-129).
This example shows two functions: i) that the text appears in this play allows
the very well device structure of rhetoric (contained elements of persuasion),
and ii) that of the text shows that its iconicity is clearly exophoric
Example 3
Feelings of love Othello to his wife, Desdemona, can be seen when he would
kill his wife, he first kissed his wife with love and then he killed himself. This
can be seen from the quotation below,
‘I kiss’d thee eve I kill’d thee; no
way but this,
killing myself, to die upon a kiss
(Act V.2, 358-360)
A kind of a repetition and seem to be antithesis can be proposed as one of
specific examples form of rhetoric figure belongs to Shakespeare. Word kiss’d
and kill’s presented parallelism, but both these words are semantically
contradicted. Kiss can be associated with love, while word kill culturally
understood as hate. How could by the reason of love, we ‘to kill’ someone,
and once again if we hate someone, how can we desire to kiss. But
eventually all are revealed through the line 'killing myself, to die upon a kiss'
From this quotation shows that literary style brings a locution, for
instance, Othello is a black, while Desdemona is a white. Word kiss’d and
kill’s are two icons of love and hate. Word ‘eve’ (=before) is a conjunction of
two contrary sentences semantically. Here, the word ‘eve’ can not be
substituted with another conjunction, and in what reason, this context is
reinforced by the argument 'no way but this’.
Example 4
Another interesting example is in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the title character
"I must be cruel [only] to be kind."
( Act III, 4, 179.)
On the surface, once again, this statement does not seem to make much
sense. Can an individual convey kindness through evil? The word cruel is
contrary with word kind. However, in this case, Hamlet is speaking about his
mother, and how he plans to ultimately slay Claudius (Hamlet’s uncle, and
also as a grandfather at the same time) in order to avenge his father's death.
His mother (Gertrude) is now married to Claudius, so of course this will be a
tragedy for her. However, he does not want his mother to be the lover of his
father's murderer (unbeknownst to her) any longer, and so he believes the
murder will be for her own good.
This line is strongly to count iconicity. The word cruel iconises to
Cladius while be kind refers to Hamlet’s mother (or what should be done by
Hamlet to mother Hamlet). Shakespeare is rhetorically to present this line with
antithesis. Although Hamlet's father is suspected to die mysteriously, but
there is an innermost belief by Hamlet that the one who killed his father was
his own uncle.
The four examples above are significant evidences that the iconic force
of rhetoric figure is very challenging to study in order to reveal the power and
beauty of the language (let it be said poetic lisence) that is Shakespeare used
in his works.
E. Technique of Data Analysis
The data of this study include a number of quotations from the works of
Shakespeare such as words, phrases, clause, sentences, and paragraphs of
dialogue through a merge review of stylistics and semiotics perspectives.
Solioquay is no exception of the data source.
Stylistics analysis, according to the writer’s mind, can be done in three
ways: (i) preparing a trap model (establish-designed model) that is used for
sorting data, (ii) collecting data related to the topic and then categorized them
by the types and their categories, and. (iii) organizing the data corpus
purposively from the collected data. This step (iii) is generally performed to
meet the needs of specific topics in accordance with the intended purposes.
For most linguists to assess that the first method is merely time
consuming and paper junk. By the first way the data will be 'forced' and then
put them to the trap (establish-designed) in accordance with available
models. This method is usually referred to as 'apples and basket' while the
latter can only be done through deep observations with the help of various
other methods
To maximize the data analysis, the writer would like to combine the
second and third method, here to note that the data do not correspond to the
trap model will be eliminated (data reduction) automatically. Through both
methods, the quality of the research is working scientifically. From here then,
the following steps to identify the character and nature of the data associated
with this research topic (see figure 7).
The technique used to analyze some of Shakespeare's works is a
method of reading through heuristic reading model of semiotic and
hermeneutic reading. Reading of the heuristic is performed by reading the
inferential interpretation through linguistic signs. This procedure is done with
the assumption that all related data elements and rherotical iconicity must
have a connection element that is of referentially to the ‘real things’ (both in
and outside the work).
Based on the amount of data analyzed, the data will be grouped
according to the character, shape and distinctive; grouping the data will be
based on a grouping which has been proposed by Hiraga (1994) in the
framework of iconic force of rhetorical figures. The following step is to
describe the data qualitatively as outlined in the further chapter; finding and
In this chapter the presentation deals with the analysis about why
Shakespeare exploited the iconic force to characterize his characters
utterance, revealing the internal and external iconicity of Shakespeare’s
works, and the iconic forces of rhetoric of Shakespeare’s plays has become
its own power of his works.
As mentioned in the previous chapter that iconic force of rhetoric figure
is a figure which is connected to a kind of iconicity; in functional-cognitive
linguistics, as well as in semiotics, it is defined as the conceived similarity or
analogy between the form of a sign (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning,
as opposed to arbitrariness. This aspect can be a symptom in the rhetorical
figure. The rhetorical figure itself is the ornament of speech. (based on the
elementary ancient classification) and it can be divided into schemes and
tropes (see the caption of schemes and tropes in the Glossary of Style,
Appendix 3)
These results prove that the stylistic Shakespeare's works contain a
number of stylistic forms which are scattered in various works, however, not
all of his works richly contain any form of stylistic elements referred to
Data source of this research is text of Shakespeare’s selected plays
that are gathered and processed primary. The data are not taken from live
performance or recorded compact-disc show. It is a printed text-based.
Furthermore the data are called corpus data (in this case Shakespeare’s
selected plays/SSP) which are picked up from 9 (nine) of Shakespeare’s
selected plays. Based on gathered data, there are 187 corpus of data
Based on the previous section that the sources of data this research
are taken from King Richard II (1595-1596) and King Henry V (1598-1599)
belong to Histories. A Midsummer’s Dream (1595-1596), The Merchant of
Venice (1596-1597), and Love’s Labour’s Lost (1594-1595) belong to
comedies, and Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595), King Lear (1605-1606), Julius
Caesar (1599-1600) and Othello (1604-1605) belong to Tragedy.
Apart from the obvious representation, this purposive of data source is
also based on the consideration that those works have already covered the
timeline of the authorship of Shakespeare in his life. Overall Shakespeare’s
productive time is merely for 22 years of his 52 years of his life.
It is inevitable that the use of language in Shakespeare's words reveal
a number of which require explanation for the general reader (or non native
reader), either because they are no longer in ordinary use or because they
are used by him in some way that is not now familiar. With such as these we
become acquainted by reference to glossaries and notes. But it is still
possible to continue to read Shakespeare’s texts without properly
understanding him because we are unaware of, and sometimes do not even
suspect, differences in the meaning of words that are now in general use in
modern English.
The following is the classification of unit of data from the data sources
mentioned above. The classification is presented as follows:
Table 7. The Classification of Unit of Data
Number of Codes
data unit
King Richard II
King Henry V
Love’s Labour’s
A Midsummer
Night’s Dream
The Merchant of
Romeo & Juliet
Julius Caesar
King Lear
Based on the presentation of unit of data in table 7 above, the following
analysis is to focus on finding (1) Rhetorical figures belong to schemes (figure
of speech that deal with patterns of words, word order, syntax, letter, and
sound rather than the meaning of words) and tropes (figure of speech with an
unexpected twist in the meaning of words), (2) The iconicity of the speech,
statement, and command as a force of speaker and listener in the dialogues
of drama, (3) anaphopric and exophoric of the speech, and (4) the ThemeRheme sample analysis of the Shakespeare’s works.
Throughout finding as mentioned above, so the objectives of the
research as 1) to identify the characteristic of the iconic force of rhetorical
figures in Shakespeare’s plays, 2) to reveal the meaning behind the iconic
force of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare’s plays, and 3) to explain the trends
of the iconic force of rhetorical figures applied in Shakespeare’s plays, will be
A. Image Iconicity
Images (e.g. a portrait of person ) achieves similarity by partaking of
some of the simple qualities of its object (e.g. the person portayed). However
image iconicity in language which is basically the problem of onomatopoea
and sound symbolism (acoustic iconicity). The sound conveyed by the
alliteration in sibilants echoes the sense. It related to the allusions. All these
allusions are actually not cheap puns, but rather part of the imagic iconicity
based on sound symbolism. This part is very limited to discuss acoustic
iconicity in literary text rather than in a movie. Nevertheless, some echoes
can be found in King Lear’s repetititon such as; Howl, howl, howl, howl!
((KL/V.3.258), Never, never, never, never, never! (KL/V.3.309), and No, no,
no, no! (KL/V.3.8)
Literary iconicity makes it possible for Shakespeare to glimpse with
one eye and to see things which are blurry through the glasses, but clear
without them. It makes him leave the place which he has been assigned in
patriarchal society. By using form to add meaning, he captures his own
authentic space of writing in a very concrete way.
Thus we can assume that Shakespeare applies an iconic writing
strategy in order to cope with his central theme: unstable signs, constructed
language make the world inside and outside the characters even more
1. Repetition & Onomatopoeia
Reviewing the works of Shakespeare, we will find mostly two things
iconicity namely repetition and onomatopoeic. Both characterizes the work of
Shakespeare's plays. Neither repetition nor onomatopoeia both intended to
provide suppressive effect, emotion and beauty. Through repetition and
onomatopoeia, figures of speech can give an iconic force in the speech that
affects attitudes to interlocutors.
1.1 Repetition
Repetition is the simple repeating of a word, within a sentence or a
poetical line, with no particular placement of the words, in order to emphasize.
Repetition may occur in repeating letters, sounds, words, phrases, sentences
for dramatic effect.
Examples of repetition, which is in the play frequently connected with
ellipsis, which itself is a device often suggestive of emotion. Iconic forces, in
dialogue of drama, may stimulate suggestive emotion. The following
quotation is an example of pure repetition: Old Gloucester, who is cheated
into believing that his good son Edgar is seeking his life, says,
O madam, my old heart is cracked,
it’s cracked
The idea, of the old man’s heart being broken is reinforced by the
repetition of the verb form ‘cracked’. The word ‘cracked’ is an iconic one in
that sense, and a force in the same time. Normally must be an echo. An echo
effect is caused by the fact that the word ‘cracked’, which surely denotes one
event coinciding with a short, sharp, surprising, sudden sound, is uttered
twice. In the dialog of drama, iconic forces can be found in repetition and
The device of iconic repetition is here combined with onomatopoeia,
the sound of the word “cracked” being similar to its non-linguistic referent.
When Edgar meets his father with his eyes gouged out and led by an old
man, he shouts,
[...] - World, world,
O world!
Another quotation shows when Albany replies Edmund statements, as
Run, run! O, run!
combination of ellipsis and repetition as two devices iconising emotion. Edgar
expresses something and then reflects on the limits of human suffering:
O gods! Who is’t can say ‘I am the worst’?
I am worse than e’er I was […]
And worse I may yet; the worst is not
So long as we can say ‘This is the worst.’
(KL/IV.1.1. 23-27)
The extreme grief felt by the speaker is mirrored in the repetition of the
central words ‘worse’ and ‘worst’, and particularly in the grammatical forms of
comparative and superlative. Here we may find the best example of the play’s
rhetoric of emotion is, of course, Lear who is driven to madness by his
suffering. In the moment of recognition (anagnorisis), when he realizes the
wickedness of his elder daughters, his grief and self-torment are boundless.
As we know Lear is a madness one after disposing of his estate between two
of his three daughter of their flattery. To prove this, here are some randomly
chosen examples of iconicity, in which ellipsis and repetition are
characteristically combined:
O Lear, Lear, Lear! (KL/I.4.274) – O, me, my heart: my
rising heart! But down! (KL/II.4.121) – Howl, howl, howl,
howl! (KL/V.3.258 & KL/V.3.307)- No, no, no, life! […]
Thoul’t come no more,/Never, never, never, never.
These combinations of ellipsis and repetition might represent a
characteristic combination of ellipsis and repetition as two devices iconising
emotion. It is to force listener to get the messages, the intention of the
Here, Lear’s language is reduced to expressive exclamations and
imperatives, all in the form of elliptic utterances. The climax of his passionate
language occurs in the play’s last scene (KL/V.3), when Lear enters with his
youngest daughter Cordelia in his arms. He is here reduced to an inarticulate
frenzy by his grief. His last utterances are negative, as seen especially in the
famous line which repeats the word “never” five times, an unheard of verse, a
blank verse line which, with its metrical inversion, creates a grating sound
(syncope). This is an extreme example of iconicity. Excessive emotion is
iconised by an excessive repetition of a word. In these examples the
rhetorical figures can hardly be understood as autoiconic devices which
provide textual cohesion. It is their primary function to mime emotion.
As has been already demonstrated with respected to King Lear,
repetition is one of the most important rhetorical devices in the representation
of emotion. But repetition can occur in innumerable forms and have many
different functions, as will be shown by a few instances.
In this section we also have polysyndeton. Associated with iconicity, in
this study found that the type of repetition rather typical, though not many, like
polysyndeton, metonomy, epistrophe, and epimone. Polysyndeton is the
repetition of conjunctions in a series of coordinate words, phrases, or clauses.
The certain case is found in Othello, act 3, scene 3.
If there be cords, or knives,
Poison, or fire, or suffocating streams,
I'll not endure it."
Metonomy; substitution of some attributive or suggestive word for what is
meant (e.g., ‘crown’ for royalty). Let’s take a simple quotation from Julius
Friends, Romans, countrymen,
Lend me your ear
There is an epistrophe quotation from Merchant of Venice in form of repetition
of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses
I'll have my bond!
Speak not against my bond!
I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond.
Furthermore is an epimone, that is a frequent repetition of a phrase or
question; dwelling on a point. An epimone is found in Julius Caesar as
"Who is here so base that would be a bondman?
If any, speak; for him I have offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?
If any speak; for him have I offended."
Another form of repetition which serves to impose order on the text or
a segment of the text, but which frequently is also used with a semiotic impact
is anadiplosis, the repetition of a word at the end of a clause or line and at the
beginning of the next. In the following quotation from Antony’s forum speech
in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (JC/III.2.104-105), the word ‘cause’ is
repeated in this way, which stresses the speaker’s intention to give force of
his strongly emotional – in fact, demagogical – oration the appearance of
reasonable argument:
You all did love him one, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
By giving the word ‘cause’ the prominent and position in one clause
and an equally prominent front position in the next clause, antonym produces
a close proximity of the two occurrences of this word, stressing the notion of
causality. The rhetorical structure of the two lines reinforces their logical
structures the argument of cause. In the linguistic study this we call
argumentum a causa.
Repetition in current case serves to give the argument the appearance
of logical proof. The mixing of the categories of emotion, forcedly, and logic is
additionally iconised by chiasmus: love-cause/ cause-mourn. In this context,
repetition and chiasmus reveal Antony’s demagogical rhetoric which gives the
appeal to his hearers’ emotions as a rational appearance
A related figure of repetition is climax or gradation, an extension of
anadiplosis in a series of three or more pairs of clauses. A fine parodistic
example comes from the mouth of Rosalind, the heroine of Shakespeare’s As
you Like it (V.2.28-37), when she makes fun of falling in love at first sight. It is
interesting that she relates her description of the falling in love of two people
to Caesar’ triad of veni, vidi, vici:
The following is a kind of iconic repetition which may force the
characters in the dialogues. Here, based on Cordelia’s response at line 89 is
stark in its simplicity: “Nothing, my lord.” (KL/I.1.91) At first, Lear doesn’t
understand, “Nothing?” and she reiterates her answer, prompting her father to
warn her at the next line (KL/I.1.91).
Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.
Think about the statement of iconic force in this exchange: “I don’t like what
you said so change your words. This is the essence of iconic forces in
characters’ speech in drama. ‘Nothing will come from nothing’ is repeated
throughout the play, forming a motif and a force. The frequent repetitions will
remind us of this dramatic beginning and will allow us to measure how much
has come from this initial ‘nothing’.
Again, Lear’s third and final big speech in the last scene and continues
the pull of emotion:
And my poor fool is hanged: no, no, no life?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,
And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.
Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir.
Do you see this? Look on her. Look, her lips,
Look there, look there
The researcher strongly believes that the reference to the “fool” here is
to Cordelia with the word used as a term of endearment. However, some
people like to believe that somehow Lear has found out about his old
companion who has also been killed by hanging.
Furthemore is about antimetabole. Antimetabole (Greek, ‘turning
about’) is a rhetorical scheme involving repetition in reverse order. Let me
present examples such as "One should eat to live, not live to eat.", ‘Don’t
drink if you drive, don’t drive if you drink’ or, ‘You like it; it likes you.’ The
witches in that Scottish play chant, ‘Fair is foul and foul is fair.’ One character
in Love's Labor's Lost uses antimetabole when he asks
I pretty, and my saying apt?
Or I apt, and my saying pretty?
(LL/I.2. 19-20).
The facts of antimetabole are found in Romeo & Juliet, King Lear,
Julis Caesar, Othello, King Henry V, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The
Merchant of Venice, and King Richard II as follows;
The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth,
from earth to heaven.
Here it is. The words come from Theseus (the great Athenian hero), but they
undoubtedly reflect Shakespeare's view as well, that a great writer (here is a
poet) must be able to grasp the sublime while never losing touch with the
prosaic, and vice versa. The next quotation is from King Henry V;
If he be not fellow with the best king,
thou shalt find the best king of good fellows.
The speaker (King Henry himself) says this about himself while trying to
persuade the French Princess Katherine to be his bride. His point is that he is
a good catch. Here is how he would say it in the first person if we translated it
into modern language: "If I'm not fellow with (meaning equal to) the best king,
I think you'll find that I'm the best king among the good fellows you might
But O, what damned minutes tells he o’er
Who dotes, yet doubts, suspect, yet strongly loves
Here is clear, ‘the first will be last and the last will be the first," and so
forth. Antimetabole often seemingly overlaps with chiasmus. Of the device is
sometimes used as a synonym for epanados in modern rhetoric figures. Once
again, a good example of chiasmus of Shakespeare is "Fair is foul and foul is
fair." (Machbet/I.1.10). Eventhough classical rhetoricians would treat it as
distinct, but there is no significant different in iconic force of rhetorical figures.
The formation is typically (a) (b) (b) (a) as like most being examples ‘I
lead the life I love; I love the life I lead. The formula of chiasmus can be
drawn as follows;
Figure 14. The Formulation of Chiasmus
Chiasmus is one of rhetorical figures in which two or more clauses are
parralel against each other by a reversal mode of their structure in order to
make an artistic and an iconic force effect
Again, of the tracing the objects, it is also found a rhetoric of anaphora.
It is a part of repetition. Anaphora is repetition of the same word or group of
words at the beginning of successive clauses. Find the following case;
To hear the replication of your sounds
Made in her concave shores?
And do you know put on your best attire?
And do you know call out a holiday?
And do you know strew flowers in this way
The form of question is to indicate an iconic forces to addressee. The next
two examples are as follows;
And let me the canakin clink, clink
And let me the canakin clink
And this is from King Lear in the end of act 3, scene 2;
When priests are more in word than matter
When brewers mar their malt with water
When nobles are their tailor’ suitors;
No heretics burn’d, but wenches suitors;
When every case in law is right;
No squire in debt, nor no poor knight;
When slanders do not live in tongue
Except in the form of irony, dialogue between characters in drama, anaphora
is always stated explicitly that have forces. The forces are in their iconicity.
1.2 Alliteration
The play Romeo & Juliet has dominated many examples of various
literary tools including alliteration. Alliteration is a series of words that begin
with the same consonant or sound alike. In fact, Shakespeare did not only put
alliteration in characters’ speech but in the beginning of the secene and
prologue as well. The following are all examples of alliteration in beginning of
the scene and prologue:
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes; A pair of
star-cross’d lovers take their life. (From the prologue to
Act 1. This is an example of alliteration with the “f” and
Now old desire doth in his deathbed lie, (Spoken by the
chorus in the prologue of Act 2. The alliteration is the “d”
I have a faint cold fear thrills through my veins,
That almost freezes up the heat of life.’ (Spoken by
Juliet in Act 4 toward the beginning of Scene three. The
“f” sound is used three times.)
the very pin of his heart cleft with the blind bow-boy's
butt-shaft: and is he a man to encounter Tybalt?’
(Spoken by Mercutio in the beginning of Act 2, Scene 4.
The “b” sound is repeated four times.)
Alliteration, by Shakespeare, is applied in characters’ speech, not only in
Romeo & Juliet but also in Othello, Julius Caesar, Love's Labor's Lost and A
Midsummer Night’s Dream. The quotations are as follows;
... if you please to get good gard and go along with me.
(Spoken by Roderigo in Othello, Act 1 of scene 1. The
repetition of “g” sound four times)
The day to cheer and night's dank dew to dry,’ (Spoken
by Friar Lawrence in Act 2 at the beginning of Scene 3.
This example shows four repetitions of ‘d’)
I pray thee, tell me than that he is well. (Spoken by
Hermia in Act 3, scene 2. The repetition of “t” sound for
If e'er thou wast thyself, and these woes thine, Thou
and these woes were all for Rosaline.’ (Spoken by Friar
Lawrence in Act 2, Scene 3. This shows alliteration with
the “w” and “th” sounds.
Which we will niggard with a little rest (Spoken by
Brutus in Act 4, scene 3. The “w” sound is repeated four
Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds. Towards
Phoebus' lodging!’ (Spoken by Juliet in Act 3 at the
beginning of Scene 2. This shows that alliteration is not
just the letter but the sound with ‘fiery’, ‘footed’ and
As Phaethon would whip you to the west, (Spoken by
Juliet in Act 3 at the beginning of Scene 2. The ‘w’ is
being repeated.)
Necessity will make us all forsworn. Three thousand
times within this three year’s space; ... Spoken by Biron
in Love's Labor's Lost. The repetition of ‘t’ sound;
When griping grief the heart doth wound, And doleful
dumps the mind oppress,’ (Spoken by Peter in Act 4,
Scene 5. Alliteration is found in the ‘g’ and ‘d’ sounds.)
If we use the principle of Semiotics, alliteration in literary text belongs
to the application of iconicity; similarity and resemblance. This will cause the
effect of beauty, like in "the blind bow-boy's butt-shaft" (RJ/II.4.17).
1.3 Onomatopoeia
Onomatopoeia, the use of sounds that are similar to the noise they
represent for a rhetorical or artistic effect. For instance, buzz, click, rattle, and
grunt make sounds akin to the noise they represent. A higher level of
onomatopoeia is the use of imitative sounds throughout a sentence to create
an auditory effect. Onomatopoeia appears in all languages, and it is a
common optional force and effect in various genres.
Onomatopoeia is the using words to convey the sound of what they
describe. Juliet's nurse (maid servant) tells Romeo about her. Look at the
following quotation;
He that can lay hold of her
Shall have the chinks.
In English, word ‘chinks’ may mean ‘gap’, However, throuh the context.
the word ‘chinks’ probably means money. The following quotations from
Shakespeare are also worth considering.
The word ‘kiss’ could also be considered as an onomatopoeia, and
‘kiss’ is to be said several times, including the dialogue exchange between
Romeo and Juliet in Act 1, scene 5. Romeo- "My lips, two blushing pilgrims,
ready stand to smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss." (RJ/I.5.95-96).
There is an onomatopoeia at the end of scene 1 where the sentence
reads: ‘That fair for which love groan'd for and would die’. The onomatopoeia
is goran'd. In everyday life we often use onomatopoeia to motivate the
impression of something, or to force something strongly.
Some kinds of onomatopoea are respectively found in Romeo & Juliet,
King Lear, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Julis Caesar, Othello, King Henry V, A
Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Merchant of Venice, and King Richard II,
such as follows;
That is not quickly buzz’d into his ears?
That the bruis’d heart was pierced through the ear
The plain – song cuckoo grey
When I a fat and bean-fed horse beguile,
Neighing in likeness of a filly foal.
(MN/II.1 55-56)
Further echoes are also discussed here as a part of the image
iconicity. In relation to the iconic force, echoes belong to the part of iconicity
of the sound image. And of course it can be analyzed in the study of literary
text. Echoes in iconity express the great emotion of character in drama. This
point can be seen at Lear’s great speech in Act 5 scene 3 as follows;
No, no, no, no! Comes let’s away to prison;
We two alone will sing like bird! the cage
When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down
And ask for thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk wit the too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out
(Kl/V.3. 8-15)
In Samuel Johnson’s day the death of Cordelia and Lear were just too
powerful and real for many readers (or audience members) to witness in the
immediacy of the live theater. In relation to image iconicity (sound symbolism)
I present what Lear’s first great speech at line 258 has some echoes from
previous scenes:
Howl, howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones:
Had I your tongues and eyes, I’d use them so
That heaven’s vault should crack. She’s gone
I know when one is dead and when one lives;
She’s dead as earth. Lend me a looking-glass;
If that her breath will mist or stain the stone,
Why, then she lives.
(KL/V.3. 258-264)
Lear begins with that pattern of four repeated words which we have seen him
use in moments of madness and great emotion.
The last extract quotation of echoes is from King Lear of final big
speech in the last scene. By this echoe, Shakespeare iconises ‘come no
more’ with ‘never’ echoes in five times simultantly.
.......... Thou’lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.
It is not withstanding that this is part of the repetition, the word 'never'
is repeated five times, producing echoes that iconises something and evoke
1.4 Imagery
Imagery, in a literary text, occurs when an author uses an object that is
not really there, in order to create a comparison between one that is, usually
evoking a more meaningful visual experience for the reader. It is useful as it
allows an author/playwright to add depth and understanding to his work, like a
sculptor adding layer and layer to his statue, building it up into a beautiful
work of art.
Much of the forces of Shakespeare’s play (in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream for instance) lies in its use of imagery: that is, in the way a thing or
person is connected in the idea with something or someone else. For
example, when Helena describes her long intimate friendship with Hermia:
So we grew together
Like to a double cherry, seeming parted,
But yet an union in partition
It proves that this image of the ‘double cherry’ does more than just
repeat the statement that the two girls were close friends. It also leads us to
think of them in connection with beautiful things in nature that grow and ripen;
and this in turn shape our attitude to Helena as a figure of character,
Hermia and their problems of growing up, making us see these as part
of a natural process for plants and human beings alike. When a direct
comparison is made, using the word ‘as’ or ‘like’, the image makes no use of
such words of comparison, and suggests that the thing spoken of and the
thing it is said to be like are actually one and the same; as when Lysander
asks Hermia;
Why is your check so pale;
How chance the roses there do fade so fast
Here the rose image is expressed as if Hermia’s cheek really was a
garden in which roses grew. Images of this kind are called metaphors. And
here too we are made to think, not only of the simple resemblance between
beautiful girls and beautiful flowers, but of other qualities, too, which they
have in common, qualities such as Theseus had already described in lines
75-79 of the same scene. One image connects with another, forming a
pattern of ideas, and this adds a richness of thought and feeling to the whole
It is just a note that in discussion of rhetorical figures, a quotation can
be used for a variety of examples in some perspectives, depending on the
angle where the problem was discussed. For example, it can be associated
with metaphor and image, and in the same time it also related to other
associated rhetorical figures. Thus it is possible to use a single quotation for
several times.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream has one powerful image keeps appearing
from the first lines of the play until almost the end. It is of the moon, which
gives a beauty and dream-like quality to all it shines on. Theseus and
Hippolyta are waiting for the new moon that will rise on their marriage night
like to a silver bow
New bent in heaven’
Let us see in the same scene where the lovers plan to meet in the
woods (jungle) after midnight when the old moon has risen. It is expressed as
Decking with liquid pearl the bladed grass’
The moon shines for Oberon and Titania who are ‘ill met by moonlight’
(MN/II.1.60), and through the following scenes the frequent mention of
moonlight keeps it in our thoughts.
Here it is, not only in A Midsummer’s Night Dream, imagery as
scattered are also found in Romeo & Juliet and King Henry V. Look at the
following extract quotations;
His face is all bubukles, and whelks, and knobs,
and flames of fire;
and his lips blows at his nose, and it is like a coal of fire,
sometimes blue, and sometimes red; but his nose is
executed and his fire is out."
"My gentle Puck, come hither. Thou remember'st
Since once I sat upon a promontory,
And heard a mermaid, on a dolphin's back,
Uttering such dulcet and harmonious breath,
That the rude sea grew civil at her song;
And certain stars shot madly from their spheres,
To hear the sea-maid's music."
"Look, love, what envious streaks
Do lace the severing clouds in yonder East:
Night's candles are burnt out, and jocund day
Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops."
"Rush on his host, as doth the melted snow
Upon the valleys, whose low vassal seat
The Alps doth spit and void his rheum upon."
"Why art thou yet so fair? shall I believe
That unsubstantial Death is amorous;
And that the lean abhorrèd monster keeps
Thee here in dark to be his paramour?"
"Death, that hath suck'd the honey of thy breath,
Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty:
Thou art not conquer'd; beauty's ensign yet
Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks,
And death's pale flag is not advancèd there."
2. Puns
Puns of rhetorical figure are always related to the context of speechs,
so they often have ambiguous meanings. Therefore it is thus clear that the
influence of context is highly variable: it differs from one word to another and
from one languange to another. Idioms infested with homonyms, for example,
will rely extensively on context to clear up that particular form of ambiguity
(Ullmann, 1983: 53)
Furthemore, figure of puns are also found in some of Shakespeare’s
works. Puns are defined as a double meaning created when one word has
two or more different meanings. This can be comic but sometimes ironic.
Many puns are difficult to understand because the meanings of words have
changed. Many of the puns in Romeo & Juliet are confusing. There are many
other elements that could be mentioned when discussing the language of
Shakespeare plays with the language, molding it like clay, making it
serve his purpose. Placing certain words together or letters together or using
rhyme or using puns etc enriches the sounds and the meaning and ultimately
the experience that audience has when viewing the play.
In a different situation, the same pun would have been clever if
somewhat strained; under the circumstances it is sublime. Like many of
Shakespeare’s characters, Mercutio dies with a quibble that asserts his
vitality in the teeth of death. He jests as long as he has breath; only if we ask
for him tomorrow shall we find him a grave man.
Homonymic puns made explicit by repetition are again less subtle
than the implicit type. They may be no more than a form of purely verbal wit:
I am too sore enpierced with his [Cupid’s] shaft
Too soar with his light feathers
If, however, there is a strong semantic contrast between the two
homonyms, the repetitive pun can be very effective, like in
Have for the gilt of France- O guilt indeed!Confirm’d conspiracy with fearful France
(KH/I.2.26-27 [prolog.]).
Romeo: “Not I, believe me.
You have dancing shoes with nimble soles;
I have a soul of lead”
It is now clear that the iconic force here looks at the use of the word
afternoon / soar and gilts of France / fearful France. Both are homoymic
rhetoric of puns. Likewise, the word ‘soles’ and the word ‘soul’ on two
previous quotations.
The words couple in paronomasia may have a different or contrasting
or even contradictory meaning. Here is, first, an instance of an antithetical
relation of the punning words from Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet as shown
“These times of woe afford no time to woo”.
The iconic impact of this pun lies in the fact that words of similar
sounds, but sharply contrasted meaning (woe-woo) are combined in one
sentence. The figure of puns thus reflects the contrarieties and antagonisms
which dominate the whole action of the play. English has much rich of these
sounds. The fundamental problem of the play is iconised in miniature by such
an antithetical combination of similar-sounding words, an effect which is also
produced by rhetorical figure of oxymoron which pervades the whole play.
This is one of the characteristics of Shakespeare’s plays. See also
paronomasia for further orientation.
It must be explained now that the role of context is even more essential
in the case of homonyms. It would obviously be meaningless to ask someone
to find the equivalent of the English word sole in a foreign languange; one
would first have to specify which of three soles is meant: the adjective, the
fish, or the bottom of the root – not to mention which, though spelt differently,
is pronounced in the same way. The Shakespearan pun:
Not on thy sole, but on thy ‘soul, harsh jew,
thou mak’st thy knife keen
A different case is to be found in the following instance of
paronomasia, the pun contained in the climactic lines of Cassius’ attempt to
persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy against the would-be king Julius
Caesar In Shakespeare’s play (Act I scene 2).
Now is it Rome indeed, and room enough,
When there is in it but one only man.
This pun, which relates the words “Rome” and “room”, is iconic in that
the phonetic similarity between the two words-according to Elizabethan
pronunciation the pun might be conceived as a homonymic pun – coincides
with a semantic correspondence. What Cassius protests against is that Rome
is under the given circumstances in danger of losing its political identity, its
status of being room for many people and not for one man, i.e. an autocratic
ruler. The pun with its combination of different words of similar sound has a
profound semiotic function. It is used to express the political ideal of Rome as
a strong hold of republicanism. To make it unmistakably clear, the pun’s
iconicity is exophoric, because Cassius argues that “room” and “Rome”
should be ‘one and the same’ reality.
B. Diagrammatic Iconicity
As mentioned before, a diagram refers to its object by virtue of
similarity between the relationship among the parts of the diagram and the
relationship among the parts of the object, the structure of linguistic
representation sometime resembles the structure of the content that it
conveys. For instance, the syntagmatic order of mention in speech
corresponds to the chronological order in which the event occurs, as in
Caesar’s ‘veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered). Pragmatically, word
affirnity relations such as morphemes (e.g. ‘acceptable’, ‘readable’,
‘replacable’, - sharing V –able” in form and “being CAPABLE of being V–ed”
in meaning), phoesthemes (e.g., ‘gleam’, ‘glance’, ‘glitter’, etc., - sharing initial
/gl/ in form and “connection to vision” in meaning) and so forth, suggests that
sameness in form signals sameness in meaning; difference in form signals
difference in meaning. Diagrammatic icons are, in this sense, analogous to
their object in structure and/or in relation. (Hiraga, 1994: 8)
Again, the two examples above indicate two possibilities in which
diagrammatc iconicity is manifested in grammar. Structural diagrams display
a correspondence between structure of form and content whereas ‘relational
diagrams’ show a tendency to associate sameness in form with sameness in
content; difference in form with difference in content. In an extreme case, this
tendency is expressed as the principle of ‘one meaning one form’.
Furthermore, we can see relational diagrams as a special case of structural
diagram, as they presuppose the working of structural analogy. The
difference between structural diagrams and relational diagrams seems to be
that the former is a structural analogy whereas the latter is a relational
analogy. Structural diagrams tend to deal with a correspondence between the
structure of linguistic form and the structure of conceptualization; relational
diagrams with a correspondence between the relation in linguistic form and
the relation in linguistic meaning (Hiraga, 1994: 8).
1. Structural Diagrams
There are several types of iconicity in which a certain structure of
linguistic representations is motivated by its similarity to the content structure
it represents (Hiraga: 1994: 8), (cf. Fischer, Olga & Nanny, 2000). These
include a) linear iconicity, b) local proximity, c) quantity iconicity, d)
symmetrical iconicity, a symmetrical iconicity, and e) categorical iconicity. The
discussions are as follows;
1.1 Linear Iconicity
Linear order of mention corresponds to the temporal sequence of
concept mentioned. When we describe a series of actions occuring in time,
the normal sentence reports them in the same order as they occur in reality.
So we say (a) John came in and sat down. > not > (b) *John sat down and
came in. The figure of Structural Analogy of Diagram is formulated as follows;
Figure 15. Structural Analogy of Diagram
The conjunction and in these sentences has asymmetric use which clearly
promotes the iconic conventions of narrative word order. Such examples are
found somewhere in Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, King Lear, Julius
Caesar, Othello, King Henry V, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and King
Richard II as follows;
Through lovers brain and [then] they dream of love
*Through they dream of love and lovers brain
The bow is bent and drawn
*The bow is drawn and bent
when my cue comes, call me, and I will answer
*I will answer when my cue comes, call me
Both meet to hear and answer such high things
*Both answer such high things and meet to her
She comes and her passion ends the play
*Her passion ends the play and she comes
Now we shall see wilful adultery and murder
*Now we shall see murder committed and wilful
He loves you and needs no other suitor but is liking
*He needs no other suiter but is liking and loves you
That hearing how are plaints and prayers do pierce
*That prayers do pierce and hearing how are plaints
that bear the corse and set it down
*that set it down and bear the corse
The data corpus above are the so called ‘linear iconicity’. Linear
iconicity also shows up in a set of frozen expression of two antithetical
conjunction such as ‘up and down’, young and old, beauty and ugly, men and
woman’, before and after, now and then’, etc.
The following iconicity which is related to the rhetorical figure is
antithesis. Antithesis, placing words or phrases which are opposite close to
each other. It can also be said that it is a juxtaposition, or contrast of ideas or
words in a balanced or parallel construction The essence of any drama is
conflict and Shakespeare intensifies the conflict by using antithesis (Good-
evil, love-hate, early-late, light-dark, power-weakness, fate-free will, warpeace etc.). Find it at Juliet about Romeo’s extract dialogues:
“My only love sprung from my only hate
Too early seen unknown, and known too late.”
It is clear that ‘only love’ and ‘only hate’, are both being antithesis.
Similarly with the 'too early and too late’. Antithesis is used to strength the
opposite thing, it is a relational analogy. Antithesis is found in the works of
Shakespeare such as Good-evil, love-hate, early-late, healty-sick, light-dark,
lucky-unlucky, sharp-dull, power-weakness, fate-free will, war-peace etc., as
mentioned above.
Next is an interesting other extract dialogues are found in Julius
Caesar, act II scene 2 as follows;
"Not that I loved Caesar less,
but that I loved Rome more."
(JC/ III.2.20-21)
Oxymoron of rhetorical figure can also be applied here. Exploring the
word ‘sick’ and ‘cheer’ considered as two opposite things. Find the following
all fancy - sick she is and pale of cheer
Oxymoron, it is about, two opposing words next to each other which
seem impossible at first glance but actually contain a striking truth. Let’s see
when Juliet says goodbye to Romeo:
Parting is such sweet sorrow
This kind of rhetorical figure is called Oxymoron. The principle of
oxymoron is two opposing words next each other. ‘Parting iconises ‘sweet
sorrow’, and sweet sorrow is oxymoron of sweet versus sorrow. See also
Hysteron Proteron for counter check.
The following is tragic. the story of love Othello to his wife,
Desdemona, can be seen when he would kill his wife, he first kissed his wife
with love and then he killed himself. This is an excellent example of iconc
force of Shakespeare. It can be seen from the quotation below,
‘I kiss’d thee eve I kill’d thee; no
way but this,
killing myself, to die upon a kiss
The quotation above might be stated as a kind of a repetition and
seems to be antithesis. Pay attention to the word kiss’d and kill’s presented
parallelism, but both these words are semantically contradicted. Kiss can be
associated with love, while word kill culturally understood as hate. And
sometime we call this a thematic opposition, that between love and hate.
'killing myself, to die upon a kiss' can be an argument to see how could by the
reason of love, we ‘to kill’ someone, and once again if we hate someone, how
can we desire to kiss.
1.2 Local Proximity Iconicity
In local proximity iconicity, not only linearity but also proximity of word
order suggests iconic interpretation, i.e. elements that occur closer together
tend to be semantically closer (Hiraga, 1994: 9). For example (a) Mary
doesn’t think he’ll leave until tomorrow, (b) Mary thinks he won’t leave until
tomorrow. Here, the (a) has a weaker negative force than the (b) as the
negative marker ‘n’t’ is further away from the verb ‘leave’ than the (b). In turn
of the discussion, many of the phenomena observed in cognitive linguistics in
terms of ‘metaphors’ can also be classified as Peircean diagrams.
In the dialogues of King Lear, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Othello, King
Henry V, and The Merchant of Venice, we find, at least, some examples as
#The observation we have not made of it had been
The observation we have made of it hat not been
#I do not know your lady love her husband
I know your lady does not love her husband
#I’ll not find a fairer face wash’d today
I’ll find a fairer face not wash’d today
#I do not think hector was so clean – timber’d
I think hector was not so clean – timber’d
#I have not charg’d thee haunt about my doors
I have charg’d thee not haunt about my doors
#I am not to pray you to strain my speech
To grosser issues nor to larger reach than to
I am to pray you not to strain my speech
To grosser issues nor to larger reach than to
#I should see not the sunday hourglass run
I should not see the sunday hourglass run
#I will say you shall not see a masque
I will not say you shall see a masque
The speech marked (#) does not belong to Shakespeare rather than a
construction speech to show a weaker negatif force of the speech.
1.3 Quantity Iconicity
According to Hiraga (1994: 11), it is widely recognized that there is an
iconic relation between the quantity of form and the quantity (strength,
degree) of meaning. Namely, the more form the more meaning. Examples
abound in relation, repetition, and replication of a world or a part of word to
signify plurality, intensity, continuation, etc.
Furthermore, the use of quantity of phonetic material to iconically mark
increased quality or quantity can be noted in the lengthening of words to
indicate a greater degree, such as ‘google’ > ‘goooogle’. In King Lear, it is
found one example of lengthening of words to indicate a greater degree;
Halloo, halloo, loo, loo!
Another example is found in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. If the previous
example is about lengthening ‘Hallo → halloo → loo, so the following one is
interverse position, Lulla → lulla → lullaby. Look at the following quotation
Philomel, with melody
Sing in our sweet lullaby:
Lulla, lulla, lullaby, lulla, lulla, lullaby
It is also common to use reduplication to iconically mark increase, but almost
not for English. “The process is generally employed, with self-evident
symbolism, to indicate such concepts as distribution, plurality, repetition,
customary activity, increase of size, added intensity, continuance” Iconic
coding principles may be natural tendencies in language. The question
whether iconicity is indeed a true part of language has always been debated
in linguistics. Onomatopoeia may be seen as a kind of iconicity, though even
onomatopoeic sounds have a large degree of arbitrariness.
Examples abound in relation, repetition, and replication of a world or a
part of word to signify plurality, intensity, continuation, etc. are as follows;
Howl, howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones:
Had I your tongues and eyes
(KL/V.3. 258-259)
So, so, so, so
I go, I go; look how I go;
Greater than great, great, great, great pompey!
Desolate, desolate, will I hence and die
O blssed, blessed night!
You are look’d for, and call’s for, ask’d for, and
sought for, in the great chamber
such as would please; ‘tis gone, ‘tis gone, ‘tis gone
Peace, peace ! Mercuito peace!
‘tis gone, ‘tis gone. ‘tis gone.
-he’s dead, he’s dead, he’s ded !
Come, stir, stir, stir!
She’s dead, she’s dead, she’s dead
O day ! O day ! O day ! O hateful day
There could I have him now- and there – and there –
and there again, and there !
World, world, O world!
Now, now, now, now pull of my boots
Help, help ! O help
Then kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill !
Howl, howl, howl, howl
An I cannot, cannot, cannot
102) Greater than great, great, great, great, pompey !
The abound in relation, repetition, and replication of a world or a part of word
to signify plurality, intensity, continuation, etc is a very effective means to
build iconic forces in the communication of literary character. Such
communication strategy not only can be used and found in the literary work
(drama) but also in daily life communication.
1.4 Symmetrical Iconicity
relationship of the concept represented [..]. Symmetry is usually expressed in
two dimensions; 1) by distinguishing between the coordination and
backgrounding, and 2) by overriding the temporal asymmetry of coordinately
conjoined elements through the use of parallel diacritics of various types
(Hiraga, 1994: 11). Compare the following pair of sentences for example: (a)
The more he eats, the fatter he gets, (b) if he eats more, he will get fatter.
Both (a) and (b) express both roughly the same things. The difference
between (a) and (b) is that (a) uses coordination to put the conjunction in
parallel, while (b) uses subordination to put the subordinate clause in
background. It is easily recognizable that the two conjunction in (a) are
symmetrical whereas in (b) are asymmetrical. The temporal asymmetry of the
two events stated in (a) by the linear iconicity is overridden by the use of
parallel diacritics ‘the +comparative form of an adjective’. The two elements
are lined up in the parallel way, so that they are taken to be equal in rank
(Hiraga, 1994: 11).
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice presents at least two
examples of symmetrical iconicity as follows;
103) [if I live to be as old as Sibylla], I will die as chaste
as Diana
[if I serve not him], I will run as far as God has any
Based on the symmetrical principle, where there is a representation
corresponds to the symmetrical relationship of the concept represented. It is
usually expressed in two dimensions. “I will die as chaste as Diana” and “I will
run as chaste as Diana” are the kind of manisfestation for symmetrical
The discussion of symmetrical iconivcity is closely related to
Parallelism (see Parallelism in section C.3.3 and vice versa) in the following
1.5 Asymmetrical Iconicity
It cannot be denied that asymmetrical relationship are manifest, to
some extent, in linear iconicity and proximity iconicity in which the sequential
order or the distance of element cue the asymmetrical relationship among the
content elements (Hiraga, 1994: 11). Compare the following pairs of
sentences; (a) The bike is near the car, (b) *The car is near the bike. Another
examples; (a) John resembles his father, (b) *John’s father resembles John.
Sentences (a) and (b) are not synonymous. There is the asymmetrical
relationship of the cognitive categories of the ‘car’ and the ‘house’. Some
extract dialogues from Shakespeare are seen in the following;
he sit under a medlar tree
*a medlar tree stood on him
your hands in your pocket
*your pocket in your hands
For an asymmetrical iconicity, it can be explained conceptually as Raphael
Lyne’s theory (2011: 68-70) especially which relates to the cognitive
categories of which cognitive semantic.
Cognitive itself is the scientific term for the process of thought.
semantics is
Semantics is the study of meaning. Cognitive semantics holds that language
is part of a more general human cognitive ability, can therefore only describe
the world as it is organised within people's conceptual spaces. Through this
concept, it is implicit that there is some difference between this conceptual
world and the real world.
So far, there are three the main tenets of cognitive semantics are i)
that grammar is a way of expressing the speaker's concept of the world, ii)
that knowledge of language is acquired and contextual, and iii) that the ability
to use language draws upon general cognitive resources and not a special
language module.
1.6 Categorical Iconicity
Besides an asymmetrical iconicity, there is also known a categorical
conceptualize the world. Lakoff in Hiraga (1994: 12) argues that .. linguistic
categories should be of the same type as other categories in our conceptual
system [..]. Evidence about the nature of linguistic categories should
contribute to a general understanding of cognitive categories in general as
explained before. The basic premise of his methodology of using linguistic
categories to understand cognitive categories presupposes that there is a
correspondence between the two. This correspondence can be taken as
diagrammatic because the linguistic categories and the cognitive categories
are ‘of the same type’. It is the sameness of the type held between coginition
and language that suggests structural diagrammatic.
In the following, there are three samples each from Romeo & Juliet,
Love’s Labour’s Lost, and King Henry V.
107) An old hare hoar; and an old hare hoar,
Is very good meat in Lent:
But a hare hoar is hoar, is too much for a score,
When it hoars ere it be spent.
Here it is the existence of categorical iconicity. Principally is at the
categorization, it corresponds to the way we conceptualize the world. The
following example is quoted from Love’s Labour’s Lost, Act 5 scene 1 as
The fox, the ape, and the humble-bee,
Were still at adds, being but three
The categorical iconicity at the quotation above signals at the ‘being but three’
refers to ‘the fox, the ape, and the humble-bee. Furthermore, in King Henry V
is also found about categorical iconicity.
Rambures: My lord constable, the armour that I saw in
your tent tonight, are those stars or suns upon it?
Constable: Stars, my lord
Douphin: Some of them will fall tomorrow, I hope
Constable: And yet my sky shall not want
(KH/III.2. IV.1.69-75)
This categorical iconicity existed in conversational party of three characters of
King Henry V. They are Rambures, Constable, and Douphin.
According to Lyne (2011: 29),
rhetorical theory maps out the
numerous ways in which speech can be varied and adorned. There are
consistent if not entirely stable divisions between different sorts of variation
and adornment. A particularly significant one is that between tropes and
figures, or sometimes between tropes and schemes, when ‘figures’ is used as
a term covering both. The difference can be paraprashed as follows: a trope
decribes a pattern in which thoughts are developed, which can in turn, to
good effect, be reflected in language; a figure is a manipulation of language in
order to achieve an additional effect (e.g. by altering the word order, playing
with sound,etc.). This distinction is not universal, and it is not an especially
stable one, relying as it does on a convenient but questionble distinction
between thought and language. However it usually enables a helpful division
between features of rhetoric that are more liable to have a special cognitive
dimension and those which are not.
2 Relational Diagrams
A principle of relational diagrams can be stated in the following way;
sameness in for signals sameness in meaning, whereas difference in form
signal difference in meaning. This principle, compared to the principle
compared to the principle of structural diagrams discussed in the previous
section, deals more with the inner relationship of the forms in a language in
respect to the inner relationship of meaning expressed (Hiraga, 1994: 13)
Again, as indicated above, this isomorphic principle has two
components; (i) difference in form reflects difference in meaning; and (ii)
sameness in form reflects sameness in meaning
The figure of Structural Analogy of Relational Diagram is formulated as
Figure 16. Structural Analogy of Relational Diagram
2.1 Difference of Form
A difference in form cues a difference in meaning, but it does not cue
the nature nor the degree of the difference. When two words or sentences are
different in form, they indicate that they mean different things. This has been
challenged by the claim that there are synonyms and paraphrases in
language. Let me briefly list a new of Bolinger’s examples (Hiraga, 1994: 14)
such as follows;
Waiting would have been a mistake
Waiting has been a mistake
To wait would have been a mistake
*To wait has been a mistake [contradicting the ‘hypothetical’ meaning
attached to the infinitive]. (b) contradict the clain that gerund an infinitive
are synonymous. Another examples are as follows;
George turned the pages
The pages were turned by George [effect being produced on the patient,
i.e. something happened to the pages in the process]
George turned the corner
*The corner was turned by George [effect not being produced on the
This contradicts the claim that the active voice and the passive voice are
Shakespeare in King Henry V presented a style of difference of form.
As the writer already mentioned before, a difference in form cues a difference
in meaning, but it does not cue the nature nor the degree of the difference.
One of the examples is as follows;
110) Sweet Portion
If you did know to whom I gave the ring,
If you did know for whom I gave the ring,
And how unwillingly I left the ring
The use of different proposition between ‘to’ and ‘for’ is significantly to
influence the sentence sense, but it is difficult to differenciate in this context.
The rhetoric figure of this kind is called synopnymous. In the same way it also
happens in the following quotation;
111) Why dost thou use me thus? I do thee not
Fellow I know thee
What dost thou know me for?
(KL/II.2. 11-13)
Eventhough both questions are spoken differently but the speaker has the
same conception merely to clarify something. The shift wh-question from
‘why’ [use] to ‘what’ [know] is meant to confirm an intention of question.
2.2 Sameness of Form
Similarity in form signals similarity in meaning. Waugh and Newfield (to
appear) demonstrate that the lexicon is pervaded by a host of association
between words based on form-meaning connections, which particularly result
in word affinity relations (Hiraga, 1994: 14).
To demonstrate the statement above, let’s find examples from Hiraga,
where an initial /fl-/ (phoneatheme) in English is expressive of movement and
characterizes a whole family of words:
(a) flap, flare, flee, flick, flicker, fling, flip, flit, flitter, flow flutter, fly
(b) the, this, that, they their, there, thou, they, thine, then, there, thus, than
thought (from Bloomfield)
(c) what, why, when, where, whose, which, whether, whom
Waugh and Newfield (Hiraga, 1994: 14) further argued that many of
such word affinity phenomena are best understood as being based on a
paradigmatic network of corresponence between form and meaning in words
as a gestalt (unified whole), rather than on a syntagmatic analysis of
correspondence between form and meaning in segmentable morphemes.
Shakespeare had applied this kind of iconicity. The principle of this
kind is similarity in form signals similarity in meaning. Similarity has already
become a very basic principle in iconic concept of Peirce. Look at the
following case;
112) O wherefore, Nature, didst thou lions frame,
Since lion vile hath here deflower’d my dear?
Which is – no, no – which was the fairest dame
That liv’d, that lov’d, that lik’d, that look’d with cheer
From the quotation above is clearly seen that the form and meaning happens
to the Verb–‘d of “That liv’d, that lov’d, that lik’d, that look’d with cheer” which
has a tense of past.
The following is the interrogation of Cinna to the Citizens in the
beginning of Act III, scene 3, as follows;
113) 1st Citizen: what is your name?
2nd Citizen: whither are you going?
3rd Citizen: where do you dwell?
4th Citizen: are you a married man or a bachelor?
2nd Citizen: answer every man directly
1st Citizen: ay, and briefly
4th Citizen: ay, and wisely
3rd Citizen: ay, and truly; you were best.
This happens two cases. First is ‘wh-question’, second one is the construction
of adverb in the form of ‘Verb-ly’ in ‘directly, briefly, wisely, and truly’. This
form of iconicity belongs to assonance
What the researcher finds in Othello is quite different. It is an
exalamation, This is the single from Othello. It is spoken by Emilia when make
a chat with Gratiano. Gratiano says “The woman falls; sure, he hath kill’d his
wife” Emilia replys as follows;
114) Ay, ay, O, lay me by my mistress’ side
Assonance in purpose, besides to create a beauty sound effect it is
also to power the iconic forces. In King Lear, it is found an assonance which
belongs to the category of sameness in form, that is ‘est’ form.
115) Foot: Mark it nuncle –
Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest,
Lend less, than thou owest,
Ride more than thou goest,
Learn more than thou trowest,
Set less than thou throwest
The application of comparison ‘more than’ and less than’ which follow the
construction superlative may create a strong power in the party of this
In The Merchant of Venice it is also found the sameness of form
signals the strong iconic forces of repetition in rhetorical figure. This current
point is found from the conversation between Shylock and Tubal, consider the
case as follows;
116) Why, thou – loss upon loss! The thief gone with so
much, and so much to find the thief, and no satisfaction,
no revenge, nor no ill luck stirring but what lights o’ my
shoulder; no sights but o’ my breathing, no tears but o’
my shedding.
Tubal: Yes, other men have ill luck too; Antonio, as I
heard in Genoa –
Shylock: What, what, what? ill luck, ill luck?
Tubal: - hath an argosy cast away, coming from Tripolis,
Shylock: I thank God! I thank God! Is it true? Is it true?
It is true, the sameness of form belongs to the very basic principle of
iconicity. It is about similarity. Principally, similarity in form signals similarity in
meaning, and rhetorically figure is related to an assonance. Assonance is a
part of repetition.
C. Metaphorical Iconicity
Metaphor is one of the aspects of iconicity. For the discussion of
metaphorical iconicity, metaphors, in this case, are different from images and
diagrams in that they require an existence of ‘something else’ i.e., third thing
in addition to a sign and the object. In this case, it is by a triadic relation that
metaphors achieve their siginification. To call again the example presented
before, a metaphorical icon (e.g., ‘My love is a rose’) siginifies its object. In
this discussion it will demonstrate that metaphorical signs, with special
emphasis on conventional and poetic metaphor, manifest all three aspects of
icons. Iconicity of metaphors might be divided into two categories;
grammatical metaphors and conventional metaphors. Both grammatical
metaphors and conventional metaphors will discuss the unit of data gathered
from Shakespeare’s plays
1. Grammatical Metaphors
The way diagrammatic iconicity is manifested in grammar can also be
interpreted as metaphorical iconicity because it involves a mapping of one
domain onto another such as the experimental (temporal and spatial) onto the
formal (grammatical) or the conceptual (cognitive) onto the linguistic. The
researcher’s emphasis of one aspect or another determines whether an
iconic link belongs to one or the other of the categories of icon. In other
words, the iconic correspondences that we have observed so far display both
diagrammatic and metaphorical aspects and the difference is just a degree of
predominance of one or the other.
Grammatical metaphor is metaphorical and has a metaphorical
meaning. In addition, the researcher argues that the notion of grammatical
metaphor is metaphorically constructed from an outdated notion of metaphor.
In this respect, again, the researcher defends that calling it “grammatical
metaphor” creates some expectations on the part of the reader, to wit, that it
is about a kind of metaphor and that there are metaphors that depend
exclusively on the grammatical structure of an expression. Nevertheless, the
notion of grammatical metaphor refers to certain non-natural grammatical
variations of natural grammatical structures and thus the expectations are not
In addition, the expression “grammatical metaphor” leads the reader
to think that there are metaphors that depend exclusively on the grammatical
structure of an expression. However, these expectations may not be fulfilled.
The main reason for this is that the Hallidayan notion of metaphor serves to
explain examples different in kind from those that are explained if we consider
his notion of grammatical metaphor.
Metaphor, according to Halliday (1990; 319), is a verbal transference;
a variation in the expression of meanings which involves a non-literal use of a
word. In particular, metaphor is an irregularity of content that consists on the
use of a word in a sense different from its proper one and related to it in terms
of similarity. Let’s see examples as proposed by Soria and Romero (see
biibliography for the source) as in (1) and (2).
The sky is crying
The old professor emeritus is a rock that is becoming brittle
with age
Following the previous definitions, (1) includes an example of metaphor, i.e.
“crying”. This word is used for something resembling that which it usually
refers to, that is, it is used to refer to the weather state of being raining
although it usually refers to the physical and emotional state of being crying.
Example (2) includes a metaphor too. In this case, the word “rock” is used in
an improper sense, it refers to beings having the quality of being hard and the
reason for this transference is the resemblance between the literal and
metaphorical references of this term, that is, the resemblance between rocks
and hard persons. But, for a word to function metaphorically it must be used
in a context that allows the interpreter to decide what type of linguistic entity
s/he is facing.
The use of a word is unusual or improper if it appears in a context
different from the contexts in which it normally does. So, for “rock” to be
correctly interpreted as metaphorical, not only may it appear in a linguistic
context as it does in a normal utterance of (2), such as (2a),
This is the case, (2a) [Pointing to a professor, I utter:] The old
professor emeritus is a rock that is becoming brittle with age but also in an
extralinguistic context as it does in (3). And then (3) [Pointing to an old
professor emeritus, I utter]: The rock is becoming brittle with age
This means that the metaphorical bearer is not a word but a normal
utterance of an expression such as (2a) which has a contraindication among
its terms or an unusual utterance of an expression such as (3). These
utterances include, at least, a word with a transferred meaning. This way in
normal utterances of (1) and (2) “crying” and “rock” acquire a transferred
meaning not because they appear with a specific grammatical category or
position but because they are used in a way different from the usual one, and
the concepts called for are different from those which these terms usually do.
This unusual use, therefore, does not depend on the grammatical form. It
does not seem plausible to think that a metaphor is a metaphor just because
of its grammatical structure.
Langacker (as cited by Hiraga, 1994: 15) also pointed out that
‘grammar embodies conventional imagery’ is equivalent with ‘metaphor’ is our
usage, as he further elaborates it by saying that [imagery] structures a scene
in a particular way for purposes of linguistic expression, emphasizing certain
facets of it at the expense of others, viewing it from a certain perspective, or
construing it in terms of a certain metaphor. This image-metaphor is useful
when explaining the subtle semantic differences between the following two
sentences or expression; (a) He sent a letter to Susan (b) He sent Susan a
Some examples are demonstrated by Shakespeare in Othello, and
King Richard II.
A knave teach me my duty
=A knave teach my duty to me
I went to France to fetch his queen
=I went to fetch his queen in France
In relation to iconicity, I claim that this is one of the external iconicities
since grammatical sentence construction can be reconstructed in people's
minds without changing the meaning of trends. Another reason, because it is
closely related to image-metaphor (see also image iconicity) where this is
useful when explaining the subtle semantic differences between the
quotations above
2. Conventional Metaphors
Metaphors are pervasive in language in both conventionalized and
creative manifestation. When particular metaphors become conventionalized,
they are felt to be literal. That is, the burden of discovering the parallelism is
no longer felt between the object of metaphor and ‘something else’. Then the
parallelism can be seen as diagram, bearing one-to-one correspondence
decoded by convention. Some conventions vary from culture to culture, while
others remain rather universal. When a metaphor is a novel and creative one,
on the other hand, it seems we are more dependent on imagination than
convention in the discovery of similarities, for the similarity relation in a
interpretation (Hiraga, 1994: 17).
For Lyne (2011: 29) simplified the definition of metaphor as a word (it
is replaced by one which is like it in some way: ‘we see well’, for ‘we
understand well’).
In this research, the reseracher has found some conventional
metaphors which were applied by Shakespeare in his works. These cases are
presented as follows;
[...] and Jaguenetta is a true girl
the bark the body is, sailing in this salt flood;
the winds thy sight
As love is, my lord, before it loves
it is the east, and Juliet is the sun!
love is a smoke made with the fume of sight;
Being purg’d a fire sparkling in lover’s eyes;
Being vex’d a sea nourish’d with lover’s tears
Halliday (1990: 35) claims that metaphor derives from the instensif ‘is’ type of
relational process, metonomy derives from the circumstantial ‘is at’ type, and
synecdoche derives from the possessive ‘has’ type; in a special sense that a
whole ‘has’ its parts.
3. Poetic Metaphors
Lakoff and Turner (Hiraga: 1994: 19) have demonstrated how basic
conceptual metaphors, which underlie everyday expressions, also underlie
many poetic metaphors and how they serve in part to give the power that
poetic metaphors disclose. They also clarify the ways in which poetic
metaphors differ from conventional metaphors, such as 1) novel extension of
a conventional metaphor, 2) nonconventional elaboration of image-schemes
by filling special or unusual case, 3) questioning of the limitation of
conventional metaphors and offering of a new one, and 4) formation of
composite metaphors by the nonconventional combination of multiple
convention metaphors for a given target domain.
3.1 Figurative Language
What we call figurative language is a deviation from what speakers of
a language understand as the ordinary or standard use of words in order to
achieve some special meaning or effect. Seemingly the two most common
figurative devices are the simile - a comparison between two distinctly
different things using ‘like’ or ‘as’ (My love's like a red, red rose) - and the
- a figure of speech in which two unlike objects are implicitly
compared without the use of ‘like’ or ‘as’. These are both examples of tropes.
In fact any figure of speech that results in a change of meaning is called a
trope. While any figure of speech that creates its effect in patterns of words or
letters in a sentence, rather than twisting the meaning of word(s), is called a
Shakespeare is widely regarded as one of the greatest English writer
in history. Understanding the works of Shakespeare is often held as a
benchmark for high literacy. He was really excellent at using figurative
language as he applied in his plays. Through the figurative language, he was
putting some iconic forces to power his idea.
The following is the purposive examples of figurative language (of
metaphor) that the researcher borrowed from tragedies, comedies, and
history plays
 But 'tis a common proof
 That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
 Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
 But when he once attains the utmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks into the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.
In this situation, Brutus struggles about whether or not to join the
conspiracy. He reflects on human nature by comparing a man climbing a
ladder to a man receiving great authority.
The next rhetorical figure of metaphor is seen at the extract dialogue
between Flavius and Marullus. By considering the following statement, we
may find iconic forces for diagrammatical iconicity of ”You blocks! You stones!
You worse than senseless things! In the written text, the force might be
identified by an exclamation. Look at the following quotation;
126) You blocks! You stones! You worse than senseless
things! / O you heard hearts, you cruel men of Rome!
The play opens with Marullus' rebuke of the commoners, comparing
them to blocks and stones. Marullus' opinion of the crowds is affirmed by the
behavior of the mobs in Act III. Again, the following is about metaphor from
Julius Caesar’s play
127) The skies are painted with unnumbered sparks,
They are all fire, and every one doth shine;
But there's but one in all doth hold his place.
So in the world: 'tis furnished well with men.
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive,
yet in the number I do not know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion; and that I am he.
The reader gains a glimpse of the arrogant Caesar, who compares himself to
the Northern star, that the conspirators fear. It is sure that this is a very
interesting simile of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The following is another
example of simile
128) Why man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Cassius compares Caesar to the giant statue of the Greek god Apollo,
which was reportedly large enough that ships could easily pass through its
legs as they entered the port at Rhodes. Cassius clearly sees the diminished
nature of his and other nobles' importance as Caesar's importance increases.
Another figurative language is also found at The Merchant of Venice
which is stated metaphorically by Antonio as follows:
129) "I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano A stage where every man must play a part,
And mine a sad one."
In addition to Julius Caesar and The Merchant of Venice, it is also found an
example of figurative language of simile at King Henry V.
130) "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
for he today that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother"
Language has a power. By means of language, someone can persuade other
people. This is done by King Henry. He established an ethos with his
rhetorical statement. He must give his men a reason to listen to him and to
trust what he tells them; being their king is not enough, he must establish a
more personal relationship with them. And he accomplishes this through a
repeated use of the first person plural pronoun ‘we', and by referring to them
as his brothers. The ‘we’ here iconises something of sense of unity and
Henry declared something with forces iconically by making himself
seem as one of his men; as an equal. The word ‘we' has a meaning and
connotation of unity and togetherness, implying that no soldier in his army is
better or above any other, the king included.
Figurative language is often associated with the language of
literature. But the fact is, whether we are conscious of it or not, we use figures
of speech every daily life in our own writing and conversations. For example,
common expressions such as ‘falling in love,’ ‘racking our brains,’ ‘hitting a
sales target,’ and ‘climbing the ladder of success’ are all the most pervasive
figure of all, metaphors
3.2 Metaphor and Simile
As mentioned above, two most common figurative devices are the
simile and metaphor, and perhaps those two are mostly found though
Shakespeare largely uses all the other figures of speech, I shall draw most of
what I have to say of Shakespeare’s style in this respect, under the head of
Simile and Metaphor, since all that can properly be called imagery is
resolvable into these. In addition, imagery will be discussed separately since
it is much of the force of iconicity.
Shakespeare uses both (metaphor and simile) a great deal, but the
simile in a way somewhat peculiar: in fact, as it is commonly used by other
playwrights, he does not seem to have been very fond of it; and when he
admits it, he generally uses it in the most informal way possible. Eventhough
it is at the risk of seeming pedantic, the writer would try to make some
analysis of the two figures in iconic forces context.
As we know that the simile may be regarded as an expanded
Metaphor, or the Metaphor as a condensed Simile. It implies that the
Metaphor admits of greater brevity. What, then, is the difference? Metaphor is
a figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two
unlike things that actually have something important in common while simile
is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, usually by
employing the words ‘like’ or ‘as’. Unlike a metaphor, a simile can be as
precise as the user needs it to be, to explicitly predicate a single feature of a
target or to vaguely predicate an under-determined and open-ended body of
features. Empirical research supports the observation that similes are more
likely to be used with explicit explanations of their intended meaning.
Let us say a simile, as the name given, is a comparison of two or more
things, more or less unlike in themselves, for the purpose of illustration. The
thing illustrated and the thing that illustrates are, so to speak, laid alongside
each other, that the less known may be made more intelligible by the light of
that which is known better. Here the two parts are kept quite distinct, and a
sort of parallel run between them. And the actions or the qualities of the two
things stand apart, each on their own side of the parallel, those of neither
being ascribed to the other.
In a metaphor, on the other hand, the two parts, instead of lying side
by side, are drawn together and incorporated into one. The idea and the
image, the thought and the illustration, are not kept distinct, but the idea is
incarnated in the image, so that the image bears the same relation to the idea
as the body does to the soul. In other words, the two parts are completely
identified, their qualities interfused and interpenetrating, so that they become
one. That is quite complicated. Thus a metaphor proceeds by ascribing to a
given object certain actions or qualities which are not literally true of that
object, and which have in reference to it only the truth of analogy. Again, to
illustrate this, when Romeo says of Juliet,
Simile is a comparison using words such as ‘like’ and ‘as’. Look at the
following of Romeo and Juliet;
"O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
it seems she hangs upon the cheek of night,
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear";
Here we have two metaphors, and also one simile. Juliet cannot be
said literally to teach the torches anything; but her brightness may be said to
make them, or rather the owner of them ashamed of their dimness; or she
may be said to be so radiant, that the torches, or the owner of them may learn
from her how torches ought to shine. Neither can it be said literally that her
beauty hangs upon the cheek of night, for the night has no cheek; but it may
be said to bear the same relation to the night as a diamond pendant does to
the dark cheek that sets it off.
In a certain case, an instance of both figures together, take the
following from King Lear, act 4, scene 3, where the Gentleman describes to
Kent the behaviour of Cordelia on hearing of her father's condition:
"You have seen
Sunshine and rain at once; her smiles and tears
Were like: a better way,--those happy smilets
That play'd on her ripe lip seem'd not to know
What guests were in her eyes; which parted thence
As pearls from diamonds dropp'd."
(KL/IV.3. 18-23)
Based on the quotation above, it is clearly seen, we have two similes,
in the first two and last clauses; and also two metaphors, severally conveyed
in. Pay attention to ‘That play'd on her ripe lip,’ and, "What guests were in her
The researcher has found that Shakespeare uses the simile in a way
somewhat quite peculiar. This may, of course, require some explication; all
deal largely in what may be styled full-drawn similes; that is, similes carefully
elaborated through all their parts, these being knit together in a balanced and
rounded whole.
Shakespeare, in fact, occasionally builds a simile on the same plan;
as in the following from Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar;
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
As a rich jewel in an Ethiop’s ear.
Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods,
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds
But the playwright does not much affect this formal mode of the thing:
Shakespeare has comparatively few instances of it; while his pages abound
in similes of the informal mode, like those quoted before. And his peculiarity in
the use of the figure consists partly in what seems not a little curious, namely,
that he sometimes begins with building a simile, and then runs it into a
metaphor before he gets through; so that we have what may be termed a
mixture of the two; that is, he sets out as if to form the two parts distinct, and
ends by identifying them. The current cases may also be in King Henry V, act
2 scene 4. The researcher also finds an interesting simile which is sometimes
merely suggested or implied as follows:
"In cases of defence 'tis best to weigh
The enemy more mighty than he seems:
So the proportions of defence are fill'd;
Which of a weak and niggardly projection,
Doth, like a miser, spoil his coat with scanting
A little cloth."
(KH/II.4. 43-49)
It is now about metaphor. As already stated before, metaphor is a
comparison without ‘as’ and ‘like’ which suggests two different things are
actually the same. One of the interesting examples come from the speech of
Romeo (to Juliet) as seen as follows;
If I profane with my unworthiest hand
This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.
In language, a metaphor is defined as a direct comparison or cross
mapping across two or more seemingly unrelated subjects. In a metaphor, a
first concept is described as being or precisely equal to a second concept.
Thus, the first concept can be economically described because implicit and
explicit attributes from the second concept are used to enhance the
description of the first. This device is exploited in literature and especially in
poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context
can powerfully be associated with another, different subject. Metaphor
comprises a subset of analogy and closely relates to other rhetorical concepts
such as comparison, simile, allegory and parable. (
3.3 Parallelism
Parallelism might be seen when the playwright establishes similar
patterns of grammatical structure and length. For instance, ‘The government
tried to make the law clear, precise, and equitable.’ The sentence above has
parallel structure in use of adjectives. However, the following sentence does
not use parallelism: ‘The government tried to make clear laws that had
precision and were equitable.
If the writer uses two parallel structures, the result is isocolon
parallelism: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." If there are three
structures, it is tricolon parallelism: "That government of the people, by the
people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Or, as one student
wrote, "Her purpose was to impress the ignorant, to perplex the dubious, and
to startle the complacent." Shakespeare used this device to good effect and
force in Richard II when King Richard laments his unfortunate position:
I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood . . . .
By indepth reading, the researcher sees how Shakespeare uses parallel
structure in Julius Caesar’s funeral speech. Pay attention to the situation
when Brutus and Antony speak. How does Shakespeare use parallel
structure and what is his purpose of doing so
He uses parallel structure throughout the speech to create contrasts.
Marc Antony wishes to create these contrasts to build sympathy for Caesar,
whom Brutus has slandered, and to cast a negative light on Brutus. Take for
an example of the following excerpt:
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
From these lines, it is to imply Caesar's goodness rather than his evil is
buried with him. Marc Antony points this out, however, because he does not
want the reader (audience) to judge entirely Caesar's badness (evil). He
wants them to remember Caesar's goodness thus undermining Brutus as the
national hero
The same case also occurs in King Lear. If we look carefully
conversation of Cordelia. Look at the early beginning of King Lear, Cordelia
says that her love for her father is the love between father and his daughter,
no more, no less.
"Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty
According to my bond; nor more nor less."
What happends then in a response, Lear flies into a rage, disowns
Cordelia, and divides her share of the kingdom between her two unworthy
sisters. Such folly and injustice is encountered by Gloucester in the
secondary plot, as follows.
O villain, villain! His very opinion in the
letter. Abhorred villain, unnatural, detested, brutish
worse than brutish! Go, sirrah, seek
him. I'll apprehend him. Abominable villain! Where
is he?"
Here Gloucester is fooled by his wick bastard son, Edmund, attacks
Edgar and leaves Edmund to his evil plans. It is sure, the parallel incidents of
Lear and Gloucester add towards the dramatic irony in the reader (audience).
The following quotation is from Shakespeare's Othello. Othello has just
killed his beloved wife, Desdemona. This is because of Othello’s
uncontrollable and unfounded jealousy. She, Desdemona, is lying dead on
the bed and he says:
I kissed thee ere I killed thee
From this line merely states the obvious. Othello kissed his wife before
he killed her. The ‘I kissed thee’ strongly iconises each other as a kind of
force in sense, in the same time this kind of speech belongs to parallelism.
But it has often been pointed out that this line also encapsulates a basic
thematic opposition present in the play, that between love and jealousy, or
love and hate (note that these are anonymus of one another).
Another example where the principle opposition (begin and end) of
Juius Caesar can be seen in the following excerpt;
Where I did begin, there shall I end
Opposition by argumentation (..because..) is taken from Love’s
Labour’s Lost, act 3 scene 3 as follows
143) by hearth you love her
because your love cannot come by her
Some additional explanations, please refer back to Linear Iconicity
(B.1.1 section) above under the heading Structural Diagram above).
Parallelism is closely related to the discussion of (B.1.4) under the
topic of symmetrical iconicity in Diagrammatic Iconicity in the previous
D. Soliliquy
One of interesting aspects in drama study, often overlooked, is
soliloquy. Soliloquy is a speech that one gives to oneself. In a play, a
character delivering a soliloquy talks to himself - thinking out loud, as it were so that the audience better understands what is happening to the character
Shakespearean soliloquies (Perng, 2008: 202) are of many types, with
different degrees of complexity in form and carrying various dramatic
implications. In terms of the interrelationship between the soliloquist and his
known or unknown addressees, the soliloquy may be divided into four basic
types: i) Plain Soliloquy, ii) Attended Soliloquy, iii) Soliloquy with Props, and
iv) Dialogical Soliloquy.
In fact, iconic forces are strongly possible to apply in Romeo & Juliet,
King Lear, Love’s Labour’s Lost, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Julius Caesar,
Othello, King Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and King Richard II which
apply iconic forces of rhetorical figures. The exract quotation as follows;
Trough lover’s brains and they dream of love:
O’er courtier’s knee, that dream on courtesies
O’er lawyer’s fingers, who straight dream on fees:
O’er ladies lips, who straight on kisses dream;
Which of the angry Mab with blisters plagues,
Because their breaths with sweetmeats tainted are.
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fobs
God ‘tween asleep and wake? – well then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate. Fine word – legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall stop the legitimate. – I grow; I prosper. –
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!
Others, like merchant, venture trade abroad,
Others, like soldiers, armed in their stings,
Make boot upon the summer’s velvet buds;
Which pillage they with merry march bring home
To the tent-royal of their emperor:
Who, busied in his majesty, surveys
The singing masons building roofs of gold,
The civil citizens kneading up the honey,
The poor mechanic porters crowding in
Their heavy burdens at his narrow gate
The sad-ey’d justice, with his surly hum,
Delivering o’er to executor pale
The lazy yawning drone. I this infer –
That many things, having full reference
That Tiber trembled underneath her banks
To hear the replication of your sounds
Made in her concave shores?
And do you now put on your best attire?
And do you now cull out a holiday?
And do you now strew flower in his way?
But, with the motion of all elements,
Courses as swift as thought in every power
And gives to every power a double power,
Above their functions and their offices.
I ran it through, even from my boyish das
To the very moment that he bade me tell it:
Wherein I spake of most disastrous chances,
Of moving accidents by flood and field,
Of hair-breadth ‘scapes i’ the immenent-deadly
Of being taken by the insolent foe
And sold to slavery, of my redemption thence
And portance in my travels’ history;
Fairy: Over hill, over dale,
Thorough bush, thorough brier,
Over park, over pale,
Thorough flood, thorough fire,
I do wander every where,
Swifter than the moon’s sphere
Puck: Up and down, up and down;
I will lead them up and down;
I am fear’d in field and town;
Goblin, lead them up and down
Here comes one
Now I do wish it, love it, long for it,
And will for evermore be true to it
Pyramus: ‘O grim-look’d night!
O night with hue do black!
O night, which ever art when day is not!
O night! O night! Alack, alack, alack!
I fear my Thisby’s promise is forgot. –
And thou, O wall! O sweet, O lovely wall!
That stand’st between her father’s ground and mine;
Thou wall, O wall! O sweet and lovely wall!
Show me thy chink to blink trough with mine eyne.
In dramas, iconic force sometimes lies in a soliloquy, as a function to
introduce and connect and for a complement of a plot. In other words
soliloquy is an integral part of the dialogue of drama. It is also called rhetoric
aside. The difference between the two (soliloquy and aside) lies in how to
communicate them
A soliloquy happens when a character makes a somewhat lengthy
speech, talking to herself/himself, while an aside is when the characters is
trying to address and talk to the audience, usually revealing something about
what is going on. Aside is more communicative than soliloquy but in the
discussion of text, soliloquy is more compatible. But in the text, soliloquy can
be understood from stage direction in the manuscript.
The soliloquy often provides necessary but otherwise inaccessible
information to the audience. The dramatic convention is that whatever a
character says in a soliloquy to the audience must be true, or at least true in
the eyes of the character speaking (i.e., the character may tell lies to mislead
other characters in the play, but whatever he states in a soliloquy is a true
reflection of what the speaker believes or feels). The soliloquy was rare in
Classical drama, but Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights used it
extensively, especially for their villains.
In some of Shakespeare’s works, the researcher finds some soliloquy.
Well-known examples include speeches by the title characters of Love’s
Labour’s Lost, Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night’s Dream and also
Iago in Othello. (contrasts with an aside) Unlike the aside, a soliloquy is not
usually indicated by specific stage directions.
The idea that a soliloquy is expression of feelings to reader (audience)
that probably comes from the fact that you are listening to a character’s
innermost thoughts. Maybe it feels like eavesdropping. It could also be
sympathy for the actor, pouring his or her emotion out on stage all alone.
Most actors relish the chance to do so though!
Characters have to reveal more of themselves than people actually do
in everyday life. Playwrights have to deal with real human issues and
emotions, and cultural experiences which tend to be quite personal like hope,
desire, view, mortality and jealousy, in a way which makes the reader’s
respond sympathetically to those emotions and feeling.
The soliloquy in a sense is more realistic – instead of forcing a
character to make long explanations to others around them, while the
audience overhears them, the soliloquy opens up the character's soul and
speaks the words that are universally spoken by each and every one us -words we have been hearing most of our lives. Shakespeare just does it
eloquently, and often. So think of a soliloquy as an attempt to get past the thin
crust of the events and plot into the truth of how people react and reflect on
the world inside of them, as well as around them.
E. Stylistics and Linguistic Deviation
One of interesting aspects in stylistics is the ability of the author to
manipulate language used for the sake of effect and rhetoric, and such
manipulation is usually referred to as linguistic deviation.
It must be admitted that Shakespeare was one of the playwrights who
can manipulate the language for personal identity, aesthetic purposes as well
as rhetoric effects. His rhetoric purposes for aesthetic and effects are
generally utilized in the form forces and of iconicity.
In the present study, the researcher has found a number of linguistic
deviations of hypallage, parallelism, apheresis, apocope, enallage, and so on.
For the sake of evidences, some examples are presented as follows
Hypallage (combining two examples of hyperbaton or anastrophe) is
characterized by the presence of
the reversed elements are not
grammatically or syntactically parallel. It is easier to give examples than to
explain it. Look the example, "The smell has brought the well-known breezes”
when we would expect, in terms of proper cause-and-effect, to have "the
breezes bring well-known smells." In King Henry V, Shakespeare writes,
Our gayness and our gift are besmirched
With rainy marching in the painful field"
When logically we would expect "with painful marching in the rainy
field." Roethke playfully states, "Once upon a tree // I came across a time." In
each example, not just one hyperbaton appears, but two when the two words
switch places with the two spots where we expect to find them. The result
often overlaps with hysteron-proteron, in that it creates a catachresis. See
hyperbaton, anastrophe, hysteron-proteron and catachresis in appendix 3
By this illustration, we find the use iconic force to make a convincing
argument, respectively; a) logos (using logical arguments such as induction
and deduction), b) pathos (creating an emotional reaction in the audience),
and c) ethos (projecting a trustworthy, authoritative, or charismatic image)
A good example of linguistic deviation in stylistics study is the basic set
distinction within the grammar is that which distinguishes between different
parts of speech. Consider now first that the following well-known lines from
Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Shakespeare writes “…. and I shall
see some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness I the posture of a whoe”
(V/II. 218-219).
Now one of the basic set distinctions within the grammar is that which
distinguishes between different parts of speech; and boy would, of course, be
specific as noun in the standard description of English. Here, however, it
operates as a transitive verb. Shakespeare is consequently guilty of violating
a grammatical rule [..]. In the case of the line from Shakespeare quoted
above the linguist can note that they constitute a deviant sentence and can
specify where the deviance lies; the playwright has violated a ‘category rule’
by transferring the lexical item boy from the category of noun to the category
of verb and more precisely to the sub-category of transitive verb (Widdowson,
1988: 15-16).
Here, the researcher also proposes aphaearesis as one of linguistic
deviation. Aphaearesis (also spelled apheresis; plural: aphaeareses, adj.
apheretic) is rhetorically deleting a syllable -unaccented or accented - from
the beginning of a word to create a new term or phrasing. For instance, in
King Lear, we hear that,
"the king hath cause to plain"
Here, the word complain has lost its first syllable. This kind of
deviation also happen in Hamlet (II/2.534), when Hamlet asks; ‘Who should
'scape whipping’ If every man were treated as he deserved.
Note that the e- in escape has itself cleverly escaped from its
position! It is an aphaeresis example of a rheorical scheme or trope. It is clear
this one contrasts with the more precise linguistic term aphesis. In the idea of
aphesis, linguistically, the omission of an unaccented syllable from the front of
a word. It strongly contrasts with the more general rhetorical term,
What we discuss then is apocope. In Apocope, it is to delete a syllable
or letter from the end of a word. In The Merchant of Venice, one character
"when I ope my lips let no dog bark,"
and the last syllable of open falls away into ope before the reader's eyes. This
is also happen in Troilus and Cressida (IV.5.148-150), Shakespeare
proclaims; "If I might in entreaties find success--/As seld I have the chance--I
would desire /My famous cousin to our Grecian tents"
Here the word seldom becomes seld. This is what the researcher
needs to state clearly that Apocope is an example of a rhetorical scheme.
And we need to note that some scholars modernize this word and refer to it
as apocopation. Contrast with syncope (see syncope in operational
definition/key tems in appendix 4). In relation to the iconic force, Shakespeare
has placed “Grecian tents” as a specific force of iconicity.
Now we are on polyptoton rhetorical figure. As an instance of
polyptoton consisting of two verb forms, a line form Richard II (KR/V.5. 49)
can be quoted:
I wasted time,
and now doth time waste me’.
(KR/V.5. 49)
Here, the entire carrier of King Richard with its two faces –the period
of incompetent rule and the period of his decline-finds a rhetorical equivalent
in the grammatical change from the subject position (‘I wasted’) to the object
position (‘wastes me’) and the change of the tense-form of the verb iconises a
change of fortune.
The misusing grammar might be one interesting case in the discussion
of iconic force. This is very linguistics. It is about Enallage. This term is
derived from Greek, meaning a "interchange". Here Shakespeare is
intentionally misusing grammar to characterize his character (speaker) or to
create a memorable phrase (to his reader or audience). We still remember
the Lifebuoy ad “cara sehat untuk mandi” rather than “cara mandi yang sehat”
(grammatically true, but ad is ad). The current deviations are also seen in
advertisement language such as "We was robbed!", or "You pays your
money, and you takes your chances."
1. Neologism
As already described earlier that Shakespeare lived during the early
modern English. Consequently, in addition to poetic license, or for artistic
reason, it is meant to upgrade the emotional effect and sense of beuaty for
the readers (audience), Shakespeare also used a lot of big words and are
rarely found in the English language today. In stylistics, the use of words such
as so-called neologism.
Neologism is a made-up word that is not a part of normal, everyday
vocabulary. As a matter of fact, Shakespeare (Measure for Measure) often
invented new words for artistic reasons. For instance, ‘I hold you as a thing
ensky’d [enskied]." (I/3.34). The word enskied implies that the girl should be
placed in the heavens. Other Shakespearean examples include climature (a
mix between climate and temperature) and abyssm (a blend between abyss
and chasm), and compounded verbs like outface or un-king. Contrast with
kenning. Occasionally, the neologism is so useful it becomes a part of
common usage, such as the word new-fangled that Chaucer invented in the
1300s. The following quotations are examples of linguistic deviation that
related to iconic forces;
Pardon me, if you please; if not, I pleas’d
Not to be pardon’d, am content withal
A banish’s traitor; all my treasury
Is yet but unfelt thanks, which more, enrich’d
O villians, vipers, damn’d without!
Dogs, easly won to fawn on any man!
Snakes, in my heath-blood warm’d
that sting my heart
One of Shakespeare's contributions to the enrichment of the English
vocabulary is by creating some neologisms. The interesting thing about those
examples are that there is a iconic relationship of each, such as [pleas'd with
'pardon]', ['treasury and enrich'd] and [vipers and snakes].
A neologism may be considered either a rhetorical scheme or a
rhetorical trope, depending upon whose scholarly definition the reader trusts
for. Neologism is generally divided into five types namely compounding,
infixation, epenthesis, proparalepsis, and prosthesis, eventhough some of
them are no found in the gathered data.
2. Irony
Shakespeare's plays rely largely on irony. There are three kinds
of irony presented in this drama. They are: situational, verbal, and dramatic.
For instance, irony plays an important aspect and role in Othello. From the
plot, this drama creates suspense, and adds interest to the story. In rhetorical
irony, it also seems to have various aspect of iconicities. One phrase can
even be iconic with other similar expressions in the drama.
There are many examples, let’s see, of situational irony in this play.
Cassio was the one Iago wanted dead or out of his position. At the end of the
play, Cassio was the only one that did not die and Othello actually promoted
him to a higher position. In the end Iago never accomplishes what he started
to do - to get back at Othello and take Cassio's place. Both Othello and Iago
treat their wives horribly.
They are then, in plot, both killed their wives even through their
innocence. Iago killed his wife because she was working against his plan.
Othello killed his wife because he thought she cheated on him when she
really didn't. Before he killed her, Iago used his wife in a way that helped him
to betray Othello. She was a good friend of Desdemona's and she worked
against her friend without knowing it. She took Desdemona's handkerchief
because Iago said he wanted it. Iago then placed the handkerchief in
Cassio's room to make him look guilty. Also, throughout the play, it seemed
that Othello was the only one who didn't know the truth. Shakespeare uses a
situational irony well to make the story more interesting.
The verbal in this drama can sometimes be humorous because of how
ironic it is. Othello often said things that were actually the opposite of Iago:
"O, thou art wise! 'Tis certain"
"Honest Iago . . . "
(OT/II.1.295) &
"I know, Iago,
Thy honesty and love doth mince this matter"
These lines are just a few of the ironic that Othello says to Iago. They
show the trust that Othello mistakenly puts in his ‘best friend.’ Most things
Iago says are ironic and he's always lying. Othello still considered him his
best friend but Iago was the only one Othello trusted although he was
constantly lying. Here, he says,
"My lord, you know I love you"
This is a blatant lie - Iago does and would do anything to make ‘his
lord's life’ miserable. It is really seen, he does not love Othello. Not anymore.
One line that Iago says is strongly very ironic in several ways. He says,
O, beware, my lord, of jealousy!
It is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on"
This line covers many things because jealousy is the reason why Iago
is betraying Othello and ruining everyone else's lives in the first place. Also,
jealousy is what causes Othello to eventually kill his wife. But he loves his
wife very much. Just a short sidenote, the metaphor here coined by
Shakespeare of jealousy being a "green-eyed monster" is very famous and a
very well written phrase. But, early in the play, Desdemona's father says
something to Othello. Find the following case;
"Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see.
She has deceived her father, and may thee"
This is not good for Othello to hear. This just helps to enforce what
Iago is trying to him to believe about Desdemona cheating on him. There are
many examples of verbal irony in Othello that add humor to the story and
make it more interesting to read (or watch).
Dramatic irony plays an important role in captivating the audience.
Dramatic irony makes parts of a story more interesting for the audience to
know something the characters don't. The strongest piece of dramatic irony
which plays out throughout the story is the fact that the reader/viewer knows
that Desdemona is innocent. Along with this, the readers also know that Iago
is really crooked. They know all of Iago's schemes and tell a lie. Othello
knows none of these things. He believes that Iago is honest and that his wife
is guilty of adultery. More instances of dramatic irony show up as characters
think aloud to the audience through asides. Then, the audience knows what is
going on when most characters don't. Dramatic irony is exciting and it makes
the reader feel like part of the story.
Throughout the play, (especially in Othello) Shakespeare uses irony to
add humor, suspense, and just to make it more force and enjoyable. The
three different kinds of irony; 1) situational, 2) verbal and 3) dramatic, all
make the play a classical Shakespeare’s plays.
3. Paronomasia
The point of paronomasia is that a mere accidental phonetic
relationship assumes the appearance of a semantic relationship. The words
couple in paronomasia may have a different or contrasting or even
contradictory meaning. Here is, first, an instance of an antithetical relation of
the punning words from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as shown below:
‘These times of woe afford no time to woo’.
The iconic impact of this pun lies in the fact that words of similar
sound, but sharply contrasted meaning (woe-woo) are combined. The figure
thus reflects the contrarieties and antagonisms which dominate the whole
action of the play. Furthermore, the fundamental problem of the play is
iconised in miniature by such an antithetical combination of similar-sounding
words, an effect which is also produced by rhetorical figure of oxymoron
which pervades the whole play. This case is commonly found in
Shakespeare’s works.
The example above must be classified as an instance of endophoric
iconicity, since it has a clearly identifiable function in that an individual
linguistic element is here an analogue to the larger structure of the whole text.
A different case is to be found in the following instance of
paronomasia, the pun contained in the climactic lines of Cassius’ attempt to
persuade Brutus to join the conspiracy against the would be king Julius
Caesar in Shakespeare’s play
Now is it Rome indeed, and room enough,
When there is in it but one only man.
This pun, which relates the words “Rome” and “room”, is iconic in that
the phonetic similarity between the two words-according to Elizabethan
pronunciation the pun might be conceived as a homonymic pun – coincides
with a semantic correspondence. What Cassius protests against is that Rome
is under the given circumstances in danger of losing its political identity, its
status of being room for many people and not for one man, i.e. an autocratic
ruler. The pun with its combination of different words of similar sound has a
profound semiotic function. It is used to express the political ideal of Rome as
a strong hold of republicanism. To make it unmistakably clear, the pun’s
iconicity is exophoric, because Cassius argues that “room” and “Room”
should be ‘one and the same’ reality.
F. Poetics Function and the Theory of Theme-Rheme
The following is a discussion of the poetic function and the ThemeRheme theory and the relationship between them in relation to the study of
literature, especially the iconic forces in the dialogues of drama.
Both these theories are the two things that have different orientations,
each of which was developed by Roman Jakobson (Poetics Function theory)
and Michael Halliday (Theme-Rheme theory). Although it seems the two
intersect each other, both these theories can be applied in the study of
iconicity in literary works of drama. The combinaton of those theory has been
applied by Sandarupa (1989) in Tropes, Symbolism, Rhetorical Structure,
Structure of Parallelsm and Parallelism of Structure in Toraja, and (2004) in
Poetics and Politics of the Kingly Death Ritual in Toraja South Sulawesi
1. Language and Poetic Function
In relation to language and poetic function, language must be
investigated in all the variety of its functions. The playwright as addresser
sends a message to addressee. In order to be operative the message, it
requires a context referred to (the "referent" in another, somewhat
ambiguous, nomenclature), graspable by the addressee, and either verbal or
capable of being verbalized; a code fully, or at least partially, common to the
addresser and addressee (or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of
the message); and, finally, a contact, a physical channel and psychological
connection between the addresser and the addressee, and enabling them to
participate in communication actively.
Jakobson (1960: 351) is one of the noted linguists who earlier talked
about Linguistics and Poetics by dealing primarily with the question, "What
makes a verbal message a work of art?" He had argued that the main subject
of poetics is the differentia specifica of verbal art in relation to other arts and
in relation to other kinds of verbal behavior, therefore, poetics is entitled to the
leading place in literary studies.
Poetics deals with problems of verbal structure, just as the analysis of
painting is concerned with pictorial structure. Since linguistics is the global
science of verbal structure, poetics may be regarded as an integral part of
linguistics. Arguments against such a claim must be thoroughly discussed. It
is evident that many devices studied by poetics are not confined to verbal art.
Linguistics is likely to explore all possible problems of relations
between discourse and the "universe of discourse": what of this universe is
verbalized by a given discourse and how it is verbalized. The truth values,
however, as far as they are - to say with the logicians - "extralinguistic
entities" obviously exceed the bounds of poetics and of linguistics in general.
Language functions as proposed by Jakobson (1960) includes a wide
range of utility functions based on character of usefulness. The six functions
of language are as follows;
1) The Referential Function
2) The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective") Function
3) The Conative Function
4) The Poetic Function
5) The Phatic Function
6) The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic" or "reflexive")
(notes: for each point it has already been explained on section F.3. Roman
Jakobson’s Linguistics and Poetics Theory).
One of the six functions is always the dominant function in a text and
usually related to the type of text. In poetry, the dominant function is the
poetic function: the focus is on the message itself. The true hallmark of poetry
is according to Jakobson "the projection of the principle of equivalence from
the axis of selection to the axis of combination". Very broadly speaking, it
implies that poetry successfully combines and integrates form and function,
that poetry turns the poetry of grammar into the grammar of poetry, so to
speak. A famous example of this principle is the political slogan "I like Ike."
(Jakobson, 1960)
It is then the so-called emotive or "expressive" function, focusing on
the addresser, aims at a direct expression lies toward what the playwright is
expressing about. It tends to produce an impression of a certain emotion,
whether true or feigned. In fact, the purely emotive stratum in language is
presented by the interjections. They differ from the means of referential
language both by their sound pattern (peculiar sound sequences or even
sounds elsewhere unusual) and by their syntactic role (they are not
components but equivalents of sentences) and so on.
The traditional model of language was confined to these three
functions - emotive, conative, and referential - and the three apexes of this
model - the first person of the addresser, the second person of the
addressee, and the "third person" properly (someone or something spoken
of). Certain additional verbal functions can be easily inferred from this triadic
model. Thus the magic, incantatory function is chiefly some kind of
conversion of an absent or inanimate "third person" into an addressee of a
conative message.
According to Jakobson (ibid, 1960: 358) whenever the addresser
and/or the addressee need to check up whether they use the same code,
speech is focused on the code: it performs a metalingual (i.e., glossing)
function. "I don't follow you — what do you mean?" asks the addressee, or in
Shakespearean diction, "What is't thou say'st?" And the addresser in
anticipation of such recapturing question inquires: "Do you know what I
mean?" Imagine such an exasperating dialogue: "The sophomore was
plucked " "But what is plucked?" "Plucked means the same as flunked." "And
flunked?" "To be flunked is to fail an exam."
The researcher observes, however, three further constitutive factors of
verbal communication and three corresponding functions of language. There
are messages primarily serving to establish, to prolong, or to discontinue
communication, to check whether the channel works ("Hello, do you hear
me?"), to attract the attention of the interlocutor or to confirm his continued
attention ("Are you listening?" or in Shakespearean diction, "Lend me your
ears!" - and on the other end of the wire "Um-hum!").
The linguistic study of the poetic function must overstep the limits of
poetry, and, on the other hand, the linguistic scrutiny of poetry cannot limit
itself to the poetic function. The particularities of diverse poetic genres imply a
differently ranked participation of the other verbal functions along with the
dominant poetic function. Through this method the reseracher applies in the
drama text by text reduction process (the Theme-Rheme), in other words, this
method was transferred into a drama text analysis
The very basic question, what is the empirical linguistic criterion of the
poetic function? In particular, what is the indispensable feature inherent in
any piece of poetry? To answer this question we must recall the two basic
modes of arrangement used in verbal behavior, they are i) selection and ii)
combination. The selection and combination can be related to what Halliday
calls Theme-Rheme. The Theme-Rheme application, once again, is one way
to find thematic structure of the work.
Let’s see again the example as proposed by Jakobson (1960: 358) if
"child" is the topic of the message, the speaker selects one among the extant,
more or less similar nouns like child, kid, youngster, tot, all of them equivalent
in a certain respect, and then, to comment on this topic, he may select one of
the semantically cognate verbs - sleeps, dozes, nods, naps. Both chosen
words combine in the speech chain.
The working principle of poetic function comes through the selection
process and reduction. The selection is produced on the basis of
equivalence, similarity and dissimilarity, synonymy and antonymy, while the
combination, the build-up of the sequence, is based on contiguity. The
process can be seen in the following figure;
Figure 17. The Selection Process of Poetic Fuction
What the writer exposures in figure 17 above refers to the process of poetic
function as proposed by Jakobson in Closing Statement: Linguistics and
Poetics, as follows;
The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from
the axis of selection into the axis of combination. Equivalence is
promoted to the constitutive device of the sequence (1960: 358)
To sum up, the analysis of verse is entirely within the competence of poetics,
and the latter may be defined as that part of linguistics which treats the poetic
function in its relationship to the other functions of language. Poetics in the
wider sense of the word deals with the poetic function not only in poetry,
where this function is superimposed upon the other functions of language, but
also outside poetry, when some other function is superimposed upon the
poetic function.
Parallelism is of two kinds necessarily - where the opposition is clearly
marked, and where it is transitional rather or chromatic. Only the first kind,
that of marked parallelism, is concerned with the structure of verse. Now the
force of this recurrence is to beget a recurrence or parallelism answering to it
in the words or thought and, speaking roughly and rather for the tendency
than the invariable result, the more marked parallelism in structure whether of
elaboration or of emphasis begets more marked parallelism in the words and
sense To the marked or abrupt kind of parallelism belong metaphor, simile,
parable, and so on, where the effect is sought in likeness of things, and
antithesis, contrast, and so on, where it is sought in unlikeness.
Let’s take an argument of what Jakobson (1960: 375) had already
explained about the extract of Julius Caesar’s Shakespeare. The main
dramatic force of Antony's exordium to the funeral oration for Caesar is
achieved by Shakespeare's playing on grammatical categories and
constructions. Mark Antony lampoons Brutus' speech by changing the alleged
reasons for Caesar's assassination into plain linguistic fictions. Brutus'
accusation of Caesar, "as he was ambitious, I slew him" undergoes
successive transformations. First Antony reduces it to a mere quotation which
puts the responsibility for the statement on the speaker quoted: "The noble
Brutus // Hath told you." When repeated, this reference to Brutus is put into
opposition to Antony's own assertions by an adversative "but" and farther
degraded by a concessive "yet." The reference to the alleger's honor ceases
to justify the allegation when repeated with a substitution of the merely
copulative "and" instead of the previous causal "for" and when finally put into
question through the malicious insertion of a modal "sure":
The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious;
For Brutus is an honourable man,
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honourable man.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honourable man.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
(JC/III.2 79-101)
The following polyptoton — "I speak . . . Brutus spoke . . . I am to speak"
(Jakobson 1960: 357) — presents the repeated allegation as mere reported
speech instead of reported facts. But it is strongly iconic. The effect lies,
modal logic would say, in the oblique context of the arguments adduced,
which makes them into unprovable belief sentences:
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
(JC/III.2 79-102-103)
This is a metapragmatic. The metapragmatic signalling allows participants to
construe what is going on in an interaction, in this case, Antony and Brutus.
The most effective device of Antony's irony is the modus obliquus of
Brutus' abstracts that is changed into a modus rectus to disclose that these
reified attributes are nothing but linguistic fictions. To Brutus' saying "he was
ambitious", Antony first replies by transferring the adjective from the agent to
the action ("Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?"), then by eliciting the
abstract noun "ambition" and converting it into the subject of a concrete
passive construction "Ambition should be made of sterner stuff" and
subsequently to the predicate noun of an interrogative sentence, "Was this
ambition?" — Brutus' appeal "hear me for my cause" is answered by the
same noun in recto, the hypostatized subject of an interrogative, active
construction: "What cause withholds you?" While Brutus calls "awake your
senses, that you may the better judge." the abstract substantive derived from
"judge" becomes an apostrophized agent in Antony's report: "O judgment,
thou art fled to brutish beasts." Incidentally, this apostrophe with its
murderous paronomasia Brutus-brutish is reminiscent of Caesar's parting
exclamation "Et tu, Brute!" Properties and activities are exhibited in recto,
whereas their carriers appear either in obliquo ("withholds you," "to brutish
beasts," "back to me") or as subjects of negative actions ("men have lost." "I
must pause"):
You all did love him once, not without cause;
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!
The last two lines of Antony's exordium display the ostensible independence
of these grammatical metonymies. The sterotyped "I mourn for so-and-so"
and the figurative but still stereotyped "so-and-so is in the coffin and my heart
is with him" or "goes out to him" give place in Antony's speech to a daringly
realized metonymy; the trope becomes a part of poetic reality:
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Based on the description above, it is shown clearly how an argument
can be a form of poetic reality
2. Theme and Rheme of Shakespeare’s Works
One way to find thematic structure of the works is to map them into the
Theme and Rheme application. The application is about the organization of
message of the work. The message may belong to the content of poem or
other literary works like drama, novel, shortstory etc. The Theme, term
proposed by Halliday (1990: 38), is the element which serves as the poin of
the departure of the message; it is that with which the clause is concerned
(1990: 38).
In this discussion, Theme-Rheme is driven to obtain the essence of the
dominant ideas in the works. The idea that dominates the content of the work
obtained through the reduction process (removing the elements that are
accidentals) in stages to arrive on two topics; The main topics and supporting
topics. Topics occupation can be used as a comparison in binary. The second
component of this, it would seem interrelationships through iconicity theory
developed by Peirce
In linguistics, the topic, or theme, of a sentence is what is being talked
about, and the comment (rheme or focus) is what is being said about the
topic. That the information structure of a clause is divided in this way is
generally agreed on, but the boundary between topic/theme depends on
grammatical theory. The difference between "topic" and grammatical subject
is that topic is used to describe the information structure, or pragmatic
structure of a clause and how it coheres with other clauses, whereas the
subject is a purely grammatical category. For example it is possible to have
clauses where the subject is not the topic, such as in passive voice.
The Theme is one element in a particular structural configuration
which, taken as a whole, organizes the clause as a message. A message
itself consists of a Theme combined with a Rheme (Halliday, 1990: 39). In
other words, Rheme is simply as a clause. So the structure of message is a
combination of Theme and Rheme.
In practical purpose, Theme is the starting point for the message; it is
what the clause is going to be about, it can be identified as that element
which comes in the first position in the clause of English language (ibid, 1990:
39). In order to get a clear obstruction (between three, subject, and actor), the
following example, from Halliday, of the Theme and Rheme as follows;
Table 8. Theme and Rheme of Halliday
the duke
my aunt
that teapot
has given my aunt that teapot
has given that teapot by the duke
the duke has given to my aunt
By using the table above, of course, it is a textual meaning. In addition, some
points, at least, can be explained, among others are mark and unmark themes. Mark
theme - when something is ‘marked’, it means that there is unusual thing and
should be noticed because of the way it stands out. When it is marked, we
look for the purpose behind the speaker’s patterning: it may be to draw the
addressees’ attention to a particular group of words or phrase, while unmark
theme is a state of affair is the most expected, common, and unmarked case.
Concerning about the meaning according to Halliday's theory, there
are three things related to the problem of meaning (function) ie ‘experientian
meaning’, ‘Interpersonal meaning’, and ‘textual ‘meaning’. Those three points
(Butt, 2001: 46, 86, 134) can be explained as follows; .
1) Experiential function/meaning: The function of the language is to talk
about what is going on (process), i.e. to encode our experience of
the world, it conveys a picture a reality (language as experience). In
this function, there are three general categories of human experience,
they are; participants, process, and circumstances.
2) Interpersonal function/meaning: The function of the language is to
interact with each other, i.e. to encode our interaction, and to show
how defensible we find our propositions (finite/auxiliary/modals).
3) Textual function/meaning: The function of the language is to
organize our experiential and interpersonal meanings into a linear and
coherent whole, so the production is not random or in the other word,
to organize our messages. It is cover the theme-rheme of the
What is related to table 8 above, it is merely function number 3, since It is to
cover the theme-rheme of the message. But other functons can be explored
respectively on table 9, 11, and 15 of the respectively of the topicalization of
the samples.
By applying this method, Theme + Rheme, the essence of the work
can be found. In other words, each work can be expressed in a brief
statement as a representation of the overall work
It is to clarify that the text coherence is characterized for having a
defined structure and correlation among its sentences and ideas. This is a
very important point. Established patterns such as Theme and Rheme and
thematic choices are used to give a coherent sense to the text. But these
resources are not the only ones, (it may from act to act and scene to scene),
cohesive ties are other elements which combined with structural ones "give
sense", in other words, they give texture to the text. In the drama text for
instance, is not taken ramdomly but rather based on logical consideration and
argumentation-based. At the result, it may produce an integrated texture of
text. The texture then is considered what makes a text a real text instead of a
group of sentences with no relation among them. In addition, the proses of
decontextulisation of text it might be a flashback as the condition and the plot
of drama.
The construction analysis model of Thema - Rhema through the
poetics punction theory presents three works of which represent each
category of Shakespeare’s works. King Richard II is for History, A
Midsummer’s Night Dream is for Comedy, and Romeo & Juliet represents for
King Richard II: History
King Richard II represents the work of history in the discussion. This work
tells the story of the life of a young king who was crowned at the age of 10
years. Richard II, written around 1595, is the first play in Shakespeare's
second "history tetralogy," a series of four plays that chronicles the rise of the
house of Lancaster to the British throne. (Its sequel plays are Henry IV, Parts
1 & 2, and Henry V.) Richard II, set around the year 1398, traces the fall from
power of the last king of the house of Plantagenet, Richard II, and his
replacement by the first Lancaster king, Henry IV (Henry Bolingbroke).
Richard II, who ascended to the throne as a young man, is a regal and
stately figure, but he is wasteful in his spending habits, unwise in his choice of
counselors, and detached from his country and its common people. He
spends too much of his time pursuing the latest Italian fashions, spending
money on his close friends, and raising taxes to fund his pet wars in Ireland
and elsewhere. When he begins to "rent out" parcels of English land to
certain wealthy noblemen in order to raise funds for one of his wars, and
seizes the lands and money of a recently deceased and much respected
uncle to help fill his coffers, both the commoners and the king's noblemen
decide that Richard has gone too far. This work was heavily influenced by
Kingdom of England history.
Based on the plot of this drama, the topic of the message is ‘work ethic
of the king’. The cognate verb is ‘work ethic of the king’, several extrants,
more or less similar noun such as royal power → good governance →
consistency → fair → firm. In addition, this Shakespeare's work is based on
the idea of Divine Right of Kings,
The central theme of the drama is whether the subjects of a king have
a right to overthrow and replace him. It is seen from the image of King
Richard II as weak, unwise, or unduly harsh. These three things are to be
found in the three extract quotations as follows;
173) That power that made you king
Hath power to keep you king in spite of all.
The means that heaven yields must be embraced
And not neglected.
(KR/III.2. 27-30)
Richard himself enunciates the view that his authority comes from God
himself; thus, he has a “divine right” to rule. John of Gaunt and the Duke of
York support this view even though Richard exhibits qualities unbecoming a
king. Henry Bolingbroke, on the other hand, believes the people have the
right to depose the king if he does not act in the best interests of the realm
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus,
How can you say to me I am a king?
(KR/III.2. 175-177)
The conflict between King Richard and Bolingbroke are serious where
both are very ambitious for power. Henry Bolingbroke, on the other hand,
believes the people have the right to depose the king if he does not act in the
best interests of the realm. Many nobles, as seen, support this view and help
Bolingbroke unseat Richard. However, after Sir Pierce Exton and his
henchmen kill Richard, Bolingbroke feels deep remorse.
Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am.
(KR/V.5. 31-34)
King Richard sometimes seems to be acting the role of king, more concerned
with the nobility of his appearance than with the reality and responsibilities of
kingship. Many characters in the play use ceremonies or theatricality as a
mask to conceal their true nature and intentions
Based on the three extract quotations above, it seems clear that there
are aspects of iconicity that are related to one another. Aspects of iconicity
are depicted as shown below;
That power that made you king
Hath power to keep you king in spite of all.
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus,
How can you say to me I am a king?
Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am.
The iconic force of topic of the message exists in the centrum “I am a king (?)”
question intonation is a strong force in this context. Similarly the repetition
(power and king), it can be a kind of iconic force in a certain case. ThemeRheme "that power that made you king treason then make me wish myself a
beggar" was revealed on the feud between Richard and Bolingbroke.
In order to explore more about the topicalization, the researcher
proposes the topic of the message by tracing its experiential meaning,
interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning. Those three functions are
presented in one fusion table as follows;
Table 9. Maximalization of Topic of the Message (King Richard II)
Based on the table above, ‘that power’ is the centrum of the message
of the clause ‘that power that made you king then treason make me wish
myself a beggar’. In the construction of topic of the message, in the layer of
experiential meaning, ‘that power’ is the actor of the process of material of the
clause. Then, in the layer of interpersonal meaning, ‘that power’ becomes the
subject of the clause. And then, in the layer of textual meaning, ‘that power’
also becomes the topical theme of the clause, where it is unmarked topical
theme because it is most expected as a theme.
What Shakespeare wanted to tell in this plays, as a topic message, is
‘power’. Demonstrative ‘that’ in ‘that power’ might be interpreted as a strong
iconic force. Once again, the Theme and Rheme of the topic of the message
can be seen in the following figure:
Table 10. Theme – Rheme: Topic of the Message (King Richard II)
That power
that made you king then treason
make me wish myself a beggar
So far, the construction of topic of the message is [that] Power: King. The
equivalence of it is Treason and Beggar. Their iconic relationship are seen as
Figure 18. Iconic Relation of Logical Subject: King Richard II
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows;
a = Power → king
b = Treason → beggar
c = Power → tresons
d = King → beggar
e = Power: king → Treason: beggar
‘Power: king’ is equivalence with ‘treason beggar’. The idea of Shakespeare
is to express that ‘a king has a power’. Throughout history, a power whatever
it is, be always a struggle. In King Richard II, Henry Bolingbroke was trying to
seize power from Richard, because he was judged unable to run the
government well. On the other hand, the action will take power for
Shakespeare expressed as 'treason' and 'beggar'.
A Midsummer’s Night Dream: Comedy
A Midsummer Night's Dream is one of Shakespeare's comedies that
tells the story of four couples intoxicated lover who loves in different motives,
motives differences are what make this work distinctive. The impression of
comedy keenly felt, especially in act 2 scene 2 where the settings are in one
place in Athens forest. This work was heavily influenced by Greek myth.
Based on the plot of this drama, the topic of the message is ‘loves in
different motives’. The cognate verb is ‘love’, several extrants, more or less
similar noun such as loyalty → mutual trust → willing sacrifice → keep
promise → consistency. → commitment. These four forms of love for each of
these pairs is true love, affectation, power and endless love.
The four couples intoxicated lovers are Lysander with Hermia,
Demetrius with Helena, Theseus with Hipholita and Oberon with Titania. Their
love motives can be traced as figured as follows;
Figure 19. Love in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
in Different Motives
A Mid-Summer Night Dreams tells the story of lovers from Athens,
Hermia and Lysander that are forbidden to marry. Demetrius seeks to pursue
Hermia, and Helena infatuated with Demetrius. Even the king and queen of
the fairies is also a fight. Then the king of the fairies uses magic potion (juice
flowers) that make Demetrius and Lysander fall in love with Helena. This
makes Lysander proclaiming a proposition about love, ‘The course of true
love never did run smooth (MN.I/1.35). This theme can be analyzed in the plot
(MN.V.1. 4-9) as follows:
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend. The
lunatic, the lover, and the poet
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold;
Thesus said to Hypolita that love can make a person crazy, lovers paralyzing
common sense, and make the lovers in a state of fear and wavering. Finally
the lovers always imagined and as they are not aware of the normal human.
Theseus (MN.V.1. 11-18) says:
That is the madmen: the lover, all as frantic
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling
And, as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
As the time went, the various challenges faced is four lovers, Lysander and
Hermia, and Helena Demetrus, Thesus and Hypolita, Oberon and Titania
through the various challenges that they finally found happiness after
enduring the challenge and passed with their togetherness. It can be seen
from Theseus’s statements in the following
That, if it would but apprehend some joy
How easy is a bush suppos’d a bear?
But all the story of the night told over,
And all their minds transfigur’d so together
Here come the lovers, full of joy and mirth
A Mid Summer Night’s Dream is one of Shakespeare’s comedies that used
jus flower as a way to promote conflict.
Where did this theme come in mind? Hermia and Lysander’s
conversation in act 1 scene 1 is a search of key essence of what
Shakespeare wanted to convey in this drama. What Lysander says;
Ah me! for aught that ever I could read
Could ever hear by tale or history,
The course of true love never did run smooth
But either it was different blood
From the beginning, we have known two characters who are actually in
love each other; Lysander and Hermia. They seem unable to be together
since Hermia's father wants her to marry Demetrius instead. In order for
Hermia and Lysander to be together, they have to run away, the fairies mess
with them, and Lysander is made to fall in love with her for a bit. Helena loves
Demetrius, but Demetrius is rude and obnoxious to her. By the end of the
story, after many trials, Demetrius and Helena are together, but is it because
Demetrius has truly come to lover her, or is he under the fairy spell? Theseus
and Hippolyta meet in battle while trying to kill each other. Pretty drastic and
unsmooth circumstances, but eventually they have fallen in love and are
happily together.
The topic massage of this drama is “the course of true love never did
run smooth.” Based on this statement, the Theme is true love while the
Rheme is ‘never did run smooth’. This topic of message is reflected iconically
in the four couples of lovers.
It is now to check out the topic of the message of ‘A Midsummer
Night’s Dream’. The presentation of topic of the message (theme,
grammatical subject, and logical actor) of ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ is
formulated as follow;
Table 11. Maximalization of Topic of the Message
(A Midsummer Night’s Dream)
By examining the table above, ‘true love’ is the centrum of the
message of the clause ‘true love never did run smooth’. In analizing the topic
of the message, in the layer of experiential meaning, ‘true love’ becomes the
actor of the process of material of the clause. Then, in the layer of
interpersonal meaning, ‘true love’ is the subject of the clause. And once
again, in the layer of textual meaning, ‘true love’ is also the theme of the
clause, where it is unmarked topical theme because it is most expected as a
Concernng with the discussion, Theme-rheme must be in consideraton
to find the centrum of the message. From that point is then to relate the
analisis of the equivalence of Roman Jakobson. Through those two points the
discussion will be terminated in iconicity.
As already stated in table 11 above, Theme-rheme of this play is “the
course of true love never did run smooth” (MN/I.1.135) as stated by Lysander
might be seen as a topic message. Find its Theme-Rheme in the following
Table 12. Theme – Rheme: Topic of the Message
(A Midsummer Night’s Dream)
True love
never did run smooth
Topic of the message is Love: Smooth. The quivalence of it is Apprehend:
Together. Their iconic relationships are seen in the following;
Figure 20. Iconic Relation of Logical Subject:
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows:
a = Love → smooth
b = Apprehend → together
c = Love → apprehend
d = Smooth → together
e = Love: smooth → Apprehend: together
The function of “never” in this statement is to clarify the relation between “true
love” and “did run smooth”. Without the word “never”, the message of drama
“A Mid Summer Night’s Dream” can be different.
Romeo and Juliet: Tragedy
Romeo and Juliet is one of a very popular tragedies written by
Shakespeare early in his career. It is about two young star-crossed lovers
whose deaths ultimately reconcile their feuding families. It was among
Shakespeare's most popular plays during his lifetime. It is one of his most
frequently performed plays. Today, the title characters are regarded as
archetypal popular young lovers.
Romeo & Juliet is a true love story that will be remembered for all the
time. This work has become an icon of Shakespeare. The central theme of
the plot may be traced as follows;
Romeo, there dead, was husband to that Juliet;
And she, there dead, that Romeo’s faithful wife:
I married them; and their stolen marriage day
A sleeping potion; which so took effect
As I intended, for it wrought on her
The form of death. Meantime, I writ to Romeo
Friar said that Romeo and Juliet is a couple that blessed for marriage. Romeo
died as the husband of Juliet, and Juliet as the wife of Romeo. Friar gave
Juliet a sleeping potion for a couple of days, the effects of the ‘sleeping
potion’ made Juliet's body became stiff and pale as a corpse. Friar then wrote
a letter to Romeo about Juliet’s death scenario. Balthasas said:
I brought my master news of Juliet’s death;
And theaten’d me with dead going in the vault;
When Friar brought news about Juliet having problems on the way, so he
asked for a help to Balthasar. In fact, Balthasar, as a result of the hearing
trouble, mishears to convey the information to Romeo about Juliet's death
scenario. What happens then, Capulet (p.187) stated
As rich shall Romeo by his lady lie;
Poor sacrifices of our enmity
Since the death of Romeo leads to the death of Juliet, Capulet will cease
hostility with Montague which had caused much bloodshed. The sad story is
told by the Prince as follows;
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.
This is the sad story of Romeo and Juliet, a true romance which they capture
by taking poison.
Romeo & Juliet is a work that represents the works of Shakespeare
tragedies. In this work 'Romeo' can be the topic of the message. In this work it
is found several extants, more or less similar nouns such as loyalty →
commitment → firmly in the establishment → mutual trust → fulfill promises
→ keep to the principle → not betray → shock-resistant → willing to sacrifice
→ as lively as dead → drink the poison
The cognate verb is ‘fidelity’ (faitful). Message construction can be
expressed as follows;
Romeo, there dead, was husband to that Juliet;
And she, there dead, that Romeo’s faithful wife:
I married them; and their stolen marriage day
A sleeping potion; which so took effect
The form of death. Meantime, I writ to Romeo
I brought my master news of Juliet’s death;
And theaten’d me with dead going in the vault;
Their course of love, the tidings of her death
As rich shall Romeo by his lady lie;
Poor sacrifices of our enmity
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.
Based on the topicalization, the iconic forces of the message exists in the
centrum ../ Romeo, there dead, was husband to that Juliet; // And she,
there dead, that Romeo’s faithful wife/.. In addition, this centrum is then to
find as the topic of the message, where the poetics structure belongs to the
equivalence in iconicity. Look at the following points
Romeo, there dead, was husband to that Juliet;
And she, there dead, that Romeo’s faithful wife
Here Shakespeare uses the specific style in the form of clauses ‘husband to
that Juliet’ → Romeo, and Romeo’s faithful wife → Juliet, ‘there dead’ iconis,
and Romeo to be opposite to ‘she’ [in this case, Juliet].
To confirm that
Romeo & Juliet is a tragic story, Shakespeare expressed in two lines like
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo
Based on the plot where the actor suffered a sadness, woe and sacrifice are
initiated by Juliet.
Furthermore, Theme and Rheme of the topic of the message can be
seen in the following figure:
Table 13. Theme – Rheme: Topic of the Message (Romeo & Juliet)
is a husband who died with a
faitful wife
The topic of the message is ‘Romeo is a husband who died with a
faitful wife’. The Theme of Romeo & Juliet is ‘Romeo’. It is shown in the table
11 above. As for the experiencial meaning, the logical actor (carrier) is also
‘Romeo’, so with the interpersonal meaning, the grammatical subject is
‘Romeo’ as well. In short, the Theme, grammatcal subject, and logical actor
are all ‘Romeo’.
The argument can be explained that the significance of these three
functional concepts is that each one correspondences to a different mode of
meaning of a clause. As a working approximation, Halliday (1990: 36-37)
defines each of them as follows;
i. The Theme is a function in the ‘clause as a message’. It is what the
message is concerned with: the point of departure for what the speaker
is going to say
ii. The Subject is a function in the ‘clause as an exchange’. It is the
element that is held responsible: in which s vested he sccess of the
clause in whatever is its particular speech function.
iii. The Actor is a function in the ‘clause as a representation’ (of a
process). It is the active participant in the process: the one that does
the deed.
These three headings – clause as message, clause as exchange, clause as
representation – refer to the three principal kinds of meaning that embodied in
the structure of a clause. Each of these kinds of meaning is expressed by
means of certain configuration of functions. Thus Theme, Subject and Actor
do not occur as isolates; each is associated with one or more other functions
of the same kind, together with which it forms meaningful configurations. A
meaningful configuration of funcions of the same kind is what is meant by
structure (see table 12).
Furthermore, from the plot of Romeo & Juliet, it is found that some of
the relationships of the main characters that are iconic to each other between
Romeo and Juliet (reciprocal), are shown in the figure below
Figure 21. Reciprocal Iconic Relation between Romeo and Juliet
In Romeo & Juliet, it is found two logical subjects; Romeo and Juliet. Both
logical subjects are the main characters of the play. As for the construction of
the topic of the message, it can be stated with Romeo: Love: Death (die).
This equivalence with Juliet: Sacrifice: Woe.
Based on the iconic relation of logical subject (figure 22), Romeo &
Juliet has two logical objects. But it’s strucrue of text, the existence of Romeo
cannot be separated with Juliet and they are complimentary each other.
However, 'love' and 'sacrifice' is represented by the word 'love', then
'death' and 'woe' is represented by the word 'death' or 'die'.
relationship can be described as follows;
Figure 22. Iconic Relation of Logical Subjects: Romeo & Juliet
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows;
a = Romeo → love
b = Juliet → sacrifice
c = Rome love → death
d = Juliet sacrifice → woe
e = Romeo → Juliet
f = love → sacrifice
g = death → woe
h = death → Juliet
i = love → Juliet
j = Romeo → sacrifice
k = Romeo → woe
l = Romeo: love: death → Juliet: sacrifice: woe
The following is the poetic structure of Romeo & Juliet based on figure
21 and 22 above. Once again, the reciprocal iconicity described (to be
maximalized) as follows;
Figure 23. Representation of Predication
As mentioned in the previous, ‘love’ and ‘sacrifice’ is represented by
the word ‘love’, while ‘death’ and ‘woe’ is represented by the word ‘death’ or
‘die’. Here is needed to adjust the part of speech since its predicative is a
There is a reason why the representation of predication to be united
into one because of the elements that are inherent in a manner other
elements. In other words, if one element already mentioned, it is otomatically
the other elements included in it.
Furtermore, recalls to the actor (logical subject) of the play, it has been
found three layer of equivalences are organised as follows;
Table 14. Degree of Equivalence of Romeo & Juliet
Romeo : Love = Juliet : Love
Romeo : Die = Juliet : Die
Romeo : Juliet = Husband : Wife
The degree of equivalence is formulated based on the message construction
(data corpus 162) as presented before.
Based on the topicalization the degree of equivalence of Romeo &
Juliet will show equivalence in iconicity of each degree of equivalence. The
iconic relations of each are presented in the following
Figure 24. Equivalence in Iconicity (1)
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows;
a = Romeo → Love : Attribution
b = Juliet → Love : Attribution
c = Romeo → Juliet : Apposition
d = Romeo [Love] → Juliet [Love] : Equivalence in iconicity
Figure 25. Equivalence in Iconicity (2)
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows;
a = Romeo → Die : Attribution
b = Juliet → Die : Attribution
c = Romeo → Juliet : Apposition
d = Romeo [Die] → Juliet [Die] : Equivalence in iconicity
Figure 26. Equivalence in Iconicity (3)
The iconic relation can be expressed as follows;
a. = Romeo → Juliet : Apposition
b. = Husband → Wife : Apposition
c. = Romeo → Husband : Synonimy (iconicity)
d. = Juliet → wife : Synonimy (iconicity)
e. = Romeo/Juliet → Husband/wife: Equivalence in iconicity (doubleiconicity).
What is presented to the three figures above are the maximalization to find
the topic of the message as proposed by Jacobson, and Theme Rheme as
proposed by Halliday. The presentation of the topic of the message (Theme,
grammatical subject, and logical actor) is formulated as follows;
Table 15. Maximalization of Topic of the Message
(Romeo & Juliet)
Based on the table above, ‘a husband who died’ is the centrum of the
message of the clause ‘Romeo is a husband who died with a faitful wife’. In
the construction of topic of the message. in the layer of experiental meaning,
‘Romeo’ becomes the actor (carrier) of the process of relational attributive of
this clause. Then, in the layer of interpersonal meaning, ‘Romeo’ is the
subject of the clause. And the last about the layer of textual meaning,
‘Romeo’ also becomes the Theme of the clause. In this layer, ‘Romeo’ is
unmarked topical theme, since it has expected as a theme of the clause.
G. Iconic Forces of Rhetorical Figures in Shakespeare’s Plays
Based on the explanation and discussion in the previous section, the
primary key of this study is to reveal the Iconic Forces of Rhetorical Figures in
Shakespeare’s Plays as the topic of this research. To recall the early
statement that iconic force is a kind of sign that has a motivated sign or
resemblance in nature to any statement, request, and or order of a sign
semiotically which gives the effect of beauty and emotion
Something can be said being iconic if it has similarities, resemblance,
and or proximity, (embodied in images, diagrams and metaphor), whereas
something is considered to have a force if in the statements, requests, and or
orders of a sign has related to others; images, diagrams and metaphor
semiotically which give the effect of beauty and emotion in a party of the
Based on the facts revealed in this discussion, it is certainly that the
study of iconicity in literary texts is related to the analysis of reference, that is
reference in the form of cohesive relationships between (correspond each
relationships can be seen in two perspectives of an internal iconicity and
external iconicity.
1. Internal and External Iconicity
Internal reference of iconicity includes icons contained within the text
itself, not something that lies beyond the text, for example, in the metaphor
(except methaporical iconicity), conventional metaphor and poetics metaphor.
As for the external iconicity, the reference of the icon refers to something that
lies beyond the text, the reader is at the intellectual environment, for example
in the image iconicity; onomatopoe and sound symbolism, as it is with
grammatical metaphor. Concrete example of this case is onomatopoea. The
reference sound (may be) are beyond the text based on emotional
experience of the reader.
This research has found the classification of internal iconicity and
external iconicity as shown in the following chart;
Figure 27. Distribution of Internal and External Iconicity
An interesting question is that why the references of iconicity are internal and
others are external ones. These questions can be answered through four
explanations as follows;
1. Internal iconicity is an icon that occurs within the text itself, not something
that lies beyond the text. This is a very basic conception of iconicity. With
the principle of sameness, similarity, proximity and equalities, alliteration
contributes to create beauty while the parallelism is an aspect of iconicity
that affects mental force to the readers in understanding anything
contained in the literature. Although it has been widely used in the study
of iconicity in poetry, but as a paradigm of variation, parallelism and
alliteration, can be developed in other studies, for example in the study of
text of drama.
2. Metaphor is a figure of most popular rhetoric and being dominant in the
study of iconicity on literature, not exception to the works of Shakespeare.
In internal iconicity, especially rhetoric figure of metaphor, this research
has found two types of metaphor (internal iconicity), they are the
conventional metaphor and poetics metaphor. Both forms of iconic are
certainly relevant to research of iconic forces perspectives
3. What the researcher claims as the internal iconicity, it seems in line with
what Jakobson calls as poetic function equivalence.
4. External iconicity is, once again, the reference of the icon refers to
something that lies beyond the text reference, for instance an
onomatopoeia, that is a word that phonetically imitates, resembles and or
suggests the source of the sound what it describes. Common occurences
of an animal includes onomatopoetic sound. Classified as external
iconicity because it's a sense of quality depending on the aesthetic
experience, emotion and culture background of the reader. In addition to
image. Image is one of the most potentially elements of the icon, and
once again it's sense of quality is largely determined by the factors
mentioned above, the aesthetic experience, emotion and culture
background of the reader
5. Especially on metaphorical iconicity is also classified as an external
iconicity (stand for the exception of metaphor, see figure ... above), on the
grounds that metaphorical iconicity, metaphors, (are different from images
and diagrams) in that it requires an existence of ‘something else’. This
fact can be seen in examples such as 'my love is my rose'. Furthermore,
the key word, is all that does not include internal iconicity classified into
external iconicity.
Based on the considerations above, it can be said that exhoporic reference is
something that is related to the external iconicity.
2. The Trends of Iconic Forces and the Dominance of Rhetoric Figures
in Shakespeare’s Plays
In this section, the researcher would like to demonstrate the trends of
iconic forces and the dominance of rhetoric figures in Shakespeare’s plays.
This discussion is intended to demonstrate in detail both the trends of iconic
forces and the dominance of rhetoric figures and their relationship in a single
The discussion will be based on the matrix model in the form of tables,
either table-based group of plays, kinds of rhetoric figures, and or kinds of
iconicity based on corpus data. In addition, the aspect of styles (Schemes
and Tropes) will also be identified in the form of tabulation.
From the discussion of these points, then they will be postulated by
rationalization in determining the trend of a group of plays (tragedy, comedy
and history). Although each tables are presented in the form of numbers, but
they do not mean that the study relies on a quantitative research but it
remains on a qualitative research in nature.
In order to find the dominance of iconicity, alernative way is to trace the
data corpus in tally and then transfer them into the tabel. The result can be
seen in the table 16 below
Table 16. Dominance of Iconicity Based on Group of Plays
Kind of
repetition &
Diagrammatic linear iconicity
 structural
local proximity
different in
sameness in
 grammatical
 conventional
 relational
group of plays
 poetic
 solilique
 linguistic
metaphor and
metaphor &
*)legend: (1) tragedy, (2) comedy, (3) history
Points in the column group of plays stated times of frequency of
tragedy (1), comedy (2) or history (3). The points in the column of rhetoric
figures expressed a kind of rhetoric figure of the category of the plays.
On the other hand, to convince the matrix, the table 16 above can be
presented in another dimension in the form of tracking kinds of rhetoric
figures based on the kinds of Iconicity referring to group of plays
perspectives. Look at the table below;
Table 17. Kinds of Rhetoric Figure on Kinds of Iconicity
No Group of
Sub classification
of Iconicity
repetition &
Rhetoric Figures
Total of
linear iconicity
local proximity
quantity iconicity
Difference in form
Sameness in form
Poetic metaphor
metaphor & simile
repetition &
linear iconicity
local proximity
quantity iconicity
Difference in form
hysteron proteron
metaphor and simile
hysteron proteron
Sameness in form
Poetic metaphor
repetition &
linear iconicity
quantity iconicity
Poetic metaphor
Based on the table 17 above, it is clearly seen that iconicity in
Shakespeare’s plays has its own trend based on its own environment. For
instance, in tragedy, the researcher finds repetition both in repetition
classification and repetition in quantity iconicity, as well as alliteration. The
other trends are is irony, metaphor/simile, parallelism onomapoeia, and puns.
For comedy, the researcher finds simile (including the symmetrical iconicity),
metaphor, repetition (both quantity iconicity and solilique) and alliteration. It is
then in history, the researcher finds only three prominent rhetoric figure, they
are respectively parallelism, simile and neologism.
The higher frequency of each category (table XV) indicates the
occurrence of a trend. Based on the table above, some trends can be
formulated as follows;
1) Image iconicity mostly comes up in the work of tragedy and comedy,
which is varied of rhetoric figure, for instance repetition (12), alliteration
(10), onomatopoeia (4), and simile (3).
2) in the same way, comedy is prominant for rhetoric figure of simile (5),
and respectively follows alliteration (3) and repetition (3)
3) Diagrammatic iconicity, especially quantity iconicity, its trend is
dominated by the work of tragedy that is rhetoric figure of repetition
(18) while in comedy, impartial between repetition (5) and metaphor (4)
4) Especially in the work of history, only three rhetoric figures are
prominent, they are linear iconicity; parallelism (3), linguistic deviation;
neologism (3) and repetition & onomatopoeia; simile (2)
5) It is proved that, based on the data, the dominance of iconicity found
respectively as follows;
a) the tragedy is dominated by image iconicity (repetition &
onomatopoeia and puns), diagrammatic iconicity (quantity iconicity,
local proximity iconicity and linear iconicity)
b) the comedy is also dominated by image iconicity (repetition &
diagrammatic iconicity (quantity iconicity) and
solilique (repetition)
c) the history is merely prominent at diagrammatic iconicity (linear
iconicity), and linguistic deviation (neologism).
From the perspective of the work, the type of iconicity and style
(Schemes and Tropes) found (without frequency-counting) based on the data
corpus is as follows;
Table 18. Kinds of Iconicity Based on Data Corpus
King Richard
Kinds of
King Henry V
Linear iconicity
Rhetoric Figure
Labour’s Lost
Linear iconicity
Linear iconicity
A Midsummer
The Merchant
of Venice
Linear iconicity
Romeo &
Linear iconicity
Linear iconicity
Julius Caesar
Linear iconicity
Linear iconicity
King Lear
Linear iconicity
The above table aims at showing the distribution of kinds of iconicity in
the object of study, and also to detect the relationship between the kinds of
iconicity found and its rhetorical figures. Furthermore, the presentation of the
results, also presenting the use of schemes and tropes in comparison. It is
very important to know the nature of the style used by Shakespeare in
relation to the study of iconicity.
Based on presentation of the data shows that both schemes and
tropes are used equally. Schemes appears 34 times while tropes as much as
32 times, with a rate ratio of fifty-fifty. (for further clarification, see appendix 3
about schemes and tropes).
3. Exophoric and Endophoric Reference
Internal iconicity, again, can be traced through the theory of
reference. Then, based on the reference it will be tracked whether the
reference is an exophoric or endophric reference. Reference in relation to
exophoric and endophoric will be discussed further in the following
Reference is a kind of cohesion created when an item in one
sentence refers to an item in another one. In order to interpret the sentence
(here is the extract quotation of corpus data), we have to look to the referent
in another sentence. While pronouns are the most common source for
reference, there are other sources. But first, there are two types of reference
as Halliday describes:
1. Exophoric reference: when the reference points outwards from the text,
linking the text to the environment (Halliday, 2004: 552). One must look to
the environment in which the text occurs to interpret the meaning of the
reference. Examples of exophora can be words like I, mine, you, and we,
which point to things (the speakers or the speakers' possessions) in the
environment in which a text occurs.
2. Endophoric reference: when the reference points inwards to the text;
interpreting the meaning of a reference requires looking elsewhere within
the text. It can either be anaphoric (pointing backwards to a referent that
has already been introduced) or cataphoric (pointing forwards to a
referent that has yet to be introduced). Anaphora is quite common
whereas cataphora is much rarer and mostly used for stylistic purposes.
When the item is referred to over again, this is what Halliday calls coreference. Co-reference can be created through the use of personal pronouns
and possessive determiners, as well as demonstrative determiners. E.g.
He/him and his; she/her and hers; it and its; and they/them and theirs. So if
the referent is, for example, a velveteen rabbit, then he, his ears, and the
rabbit are all types of reference called co-reference to a velveteen rabbit
(Halliday, 2004: 554). Co-reference can also be established through the use
of demonstratives: this/these and that/those. Example of exophora: We could
move that table, while example of anaphora: The guitar looked beautiful, but
its sound detracted from this notion. (This notion of beauty)
Reference can also be created through the use of certain adjectives,
adverbs, and comparatives in a type of reference. Halliday calls comparative
reference, where the reference item still relates to the referent, but it is a
relation of contrast. Some words that can create comparative reference
include: some, similar, other, more, less, similarly, and different.,e.g. ‘I have
accepted too many invitations already’. Other invitations will have to be
declined. (Where other refers to the accepted invitations through contrast by
the invitations to be declined).
To call again the example that has already mentioned in chapter II,
endophora is a term that means an expression which refers to something
intralinguistic (understandable), i.e. in the same text. Look at the case, let's
say we are given: "I saw Anina yesterday. She was lying on the beach". Here
"she" is an endophoric expression since the ‘she’ refers to something already
mentioned in the text, i.e. "Anina".
By contrast, "She was lying on the beach," if it appeared by itself, has
an exophoric
expression; "she" refers to something that the reader
(audience) is not told about. In other words, there is not enough information in
the text to independently determine to whom "she" refers to. It can refer to
someone the speaker assumes his audience has prior knowledge of or it can
refer to a person he is showing to his audience (listeners). Without further
information, in other words, there is no way of knowing the exact meaning of
an exophoric term.
Again, Halliday (2004: 553) presented an exophoric and endophoric
reference as shown in the following table;
Table 19. Exophoric and Endophoric Reference
Exophora and endophora are different directions of pointing – either to
referents in the environment outside the text, or to referents introduced in the
text itself before or after the reference expression. But how does this
reference expression achieve the effect of ‘pointing’? All such expressions
have in common the fact that they presuppose referents; but they differ with
respect to whether what is presupposed is the same referent (co-reference)
or another referent of the same class (comparative reference) (ibid, 553)
In order to show the application of exhopora and endophora, the
followings are some quoted data taken ramdomly from the previous
discussion as follows;
Endophoric Reference
1) My lord, you know I love you (OT/III.3.117). Here ‘you’ is endophoric
expression sice the ‘you’ refers to something already mention in the text,
i.e. ‘my lord’.
2) When I ope my lips let no dog bark (MV/I.1.93-94) This quotation is an
endophoric expression since ‘my’ refers to something already mentioned
and understood by the reader and audience, i.e. ‘I’
3) I wasted time,//and now doth time waste me’/. (KR/V.5. 49). Here is clear
that tis sentence is an endophoric expression. The ‘me’ refers to the ‘I’
that is the speaker of this expression
4) My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,//And I must pause till it come
back to me. (JC/III.2.108-109) Here “me” is endophoric expression since
the “me” refers to something already mentioned in the text, i,e. “I”
5) Romeo: ‘”Not I, believe me.//You have danching shoes eith nimble soles;
I have a soul of lead” (RJ/1.4.14-15) Here
“me” is an
expression since the “me” refers to something already mentioned in text
“I” that is the speaker, and ‘I’ here refers to Romeo.
6) O madam, my old herth is cracked, it’s cracket (KL/II.1.91) It is clear that
the ‘it’ is an endohoric expression. More specifically it is anaphoric one.
7) As love is, my lord, before it love (KH.II.2.322) This expression goes the
same with number [6] above, the ‘it’ refers to my lord, and it is also
anaphoric expression.
As explained in this theory that endophoric divided into two namely
anaphora and cataphora, their difference is of the pointing direction. If the
reference item stands before, it is called anaphoric, whereas it stands after, it
is the co called cathaporic (see Table 10 above).
Exophoric Reference
1) He loves you and needs no other suitor but is liking (OT/III.1.51-52). The
‘he’ refers to something that the reader (audience) is not told about. There
is no enough information in the text to independently determine to whom
‘he’ refers to.
2) I went to France to fetch his queen (KR/I.2.131). His queen refers to
something that does not to be told about in the play. The reader has no
enough information from the text to independently determine to whom ‘his
queen’ refers to.
3) But O, what damned minutes tells he o’er//Who dotes, yet doubts,
suspect, yet strongly loves, (OT/III.3.170-171) ‘He’ here refers to
something that the reader is not told about
4) If he be not fellow with the best king, Thou shalt find the best king of good
fellows. (KH/V.2.247-248) “He” refers to something that does not to be
told about in the play.
5) He that can lay hold of her Shall have the chinks. (RJ/1.5.115-116) “He”
and ”her” refer to something that does not to be told about in the play.
6) His face is all bubukles, and whelks, and knobs, and flames of fire; //And
his lips blows at his noce, and it is like a coal of fire, sometimes blue, and
sometimes red; but his nose is executed and his fire is out” (KH/III.6.98101) ‘His’ refer to something that the reader is not told about.
7) He sit under a medlar tree (RJ/II.2.34) “He” refers to something that the
reader is not told about.
Besides that, it is also found the amount of data that contain both endophoric
and exophorc at once. There are five random examples to show here;
1. "O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!//it seems she hangs upon
the cheek of night,//Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear";(RJ/I.5.44-46)
2. “When my cue comes, call me and I will answer” (MN/IV.203)
3. “The evil that men do lives after them,//The good is oft interred with their
bones” (JC/III.2.77-78)
4. “I ran it through, even from my boyish das//To the very moment that he
bade me tell it” (MV/I.3.133-134)
5. “I pray thee, tell me than that he is well” (MN/III.2.77).
Through the reference of exophoric expression, once again, it is what makes
the reader or audience to make any interpretation in order to make sure what
is actually meant by the author. In literary theory, it is called the contextual
gap between the author and the reader, and of the contextual gap must be
filled by the reader through interpretation.
To apply iconicty functions in assisting reading comprehension
literature, the necessary knowledge whether an incoming speech on
endophoric iconicity or exophoric iconicity although research dialogue literary
texts often ignore this.
Based on the data of this research. iconic forces of Shakespeare’s
works (exophoric atau endhoporic) can be explained as follows;
1. Eventhough it is in a very limited case, exophoric iconicity is also found in
the works of Shakespeare. Contrary to the poetry, perhaps the opposite
2. It can be proved that, in case of the study of iconic force, exophoric and
endophoric iconicity sometimes cannot be clearly separated, and
sometimes the semiotic (iconic) forces of figures of order is so strong that
the merely endophoric aspect is dominant.
3. as already mentioned before, anaphora is quite common whereas
cataphora is much rarer and mostly used for stylistic purposes.
A. Conclusion
Based on finding and discussion of this study, it can be proved that the
language used by Shakespeare in his works give aesthetic and rhetoric
through his style and iconicity application, and in turn had been a great and a
significant contibution for the development of semiotics and stylistics. The
works of Shakespeare (especially his plays) were written between 1594 –
1616 while the theory of stylistics just develop in 1923.
Shakespeare is the author of a very influential not only in the literary
world but also on the history of the English language. In England history he
lived in the early period of modern English as it is today. Up to now his work
has become an important part of the history of world literature.
In this study, nine of the thirty eight works of Shakespeare's plays were
reviewed and three of the works that specifically analyzed with the poetic
function theory (Jakobson) and Theme-Rheme (Halliday). Moreover, in
general, these studies have found aspects of interrelational iconicity of the
works, among others are; i) in general, conflict occurred not only due to the
main character, but because the act of supporting characters, ii) the tragic
tale 'drinking poison, not just occured in Romeo and Juliet but also in other
dramas, such as on A Midsummer’s Night, and iii) Othello.
Shakespeare's first plays were written in the conventional style of the
day. He wrote them in a stylised language that does not always spring
naturally from the needs of the characters or the drama, and the language is
often rhetorical - written for actors to declaim rather than to speak.
Shortly thereafter, Shakespeare began to adapt the traditional styles to
his own purposes. The opening soliloquy of King Richard II, act 5 scene 5,
has its roots in the self-declaration of vice in medieval drama. At the same
time, Richard’s vivid self-awareness looks forward to the soliloquies of
Shakespeare's mature plays. No single play marks a change from the
traditional to the freer style. Shakespeare combined the two throughout his
career, with Romeo & Juliet perhaps the best example of the mixing of the
Shakespeare's work has made a lasting impression on literature. In
particular, he expanded the dramatic potential of characterisation, plot,
language, and genre. Until Romeo & Juliet, for example, romance had not
been viewed as a worthy topic for tragedy. Soliloquies had been used mainly
to convey information about characters or events; but Shakespeare used
them to explore characters' minds. In Shakespeare's day, English grammar,
spelling and pronunciation were less standardized than they are now, and his
use of language helped shape modern English. Expressions such as "with
bated breath" (Merchant of Venice), ‘the course of true love never did run
smooth’ (In Midsummer Night;s Dream), ‘what is in a name? (Romeo and
Juliet), veni vidi vici (Julius Caesar), "To be, or not to be: that is the question"
(Hamlet) and "a foregone conclusion" (Othello) have found their way into
everyday English speech.
The conclusions of this study can be stated descriptively as follows; (1)
the characteristic of the iconic forces of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare's
plays divided into internal iconicity and external iconicity, metaphor, for
example, are in both of these aspects, (2) iconicity is critical in defining
literature, forms and types of what are in literature, to the understanding
something in the works should be more increasingly comprehend, and (3)
what is theorized by Peirce's icon has now been growing rapidly in various
aspects of literary and cultural studies, and has penetrated into the drama
text study, as this study. Here the text of the drama should be seen as a
performance on the stage.
It should be promoted that the analysis by combining three things; the
poetic function, Theme-Rheme and equivalence of the topic of the message
are breakthrough in the analysis of literary texts. Decontextualization in
literary texts with linguistic discussion has met the scientific criteria that
literary texts can be analyzed by using a linguistic approach. Not only the
stylistics aspects alone, but more than that, in research on iconic aspects of
forces, the literary text should be seen as something dynamic.
Some other important things also become the findings in this study,
among others are; (1) Shakespeare managed to find some new neologism of
new English vocabularies are acceptable to the present, (2) The researcher
has found some linguistic deviations which are the characteristic of
Shakespeare as an author, (3) Shakespeare's works are known for having a
lot of expressions, quotations and sentences or phrases that are still
memorable actually used in everyday life, (4), Shakespeare wrote his plays in
Early Modern English – i.e. the daily language as was spoken at his time. He
uses many different styles of language in his plays, depending on the
characters and the circumstances - some educated, some rustic, some
heroic, some dialectical, sometimes serious, and sometimes comical, and (5)
There are interesting social reflection of Shakespeare's characters that
describe the behavior; reflected from the speechs, emotions and thoughts
where are still relevant to life today.
The unexpected in this study is that Shakespeare's style has become
the distinguishing feature of the contemporary literary works, and also a
source of inspiration for great writers afterward. With the existing facts that
the iconic forces of rhetoric found in Shakespeare’s plays have become their
own power of his works.
Even after four centuries, the literary world remains to uphold
Shakespeare as the greatest genius playwright in British literature. The
stylistic in his works have contributed to its own in the advancement of
various sciences. While his best known as a dramatist, Shakespeare was
also a distinguished poet. Shakespeare’s extraordinary gifts for complex
poetic imagery, mixed metaphor, simile, alliteration and intelligent puns, along
with insight into human nature are the characteristics that created the legacy
he is today. He has shown various forms of iconic forces through a variety of
distinctive styles.
In conclusion Shakespeare had a tremendous influence on cultures
and literature throughout the world. His works reflected aspects of his
lifestyle, as well as expansion of the ideas of others into literary works of his
own. His contribution to the development of the English language offered
many words and phrases that have become a part of speech and capable of
comprehension. Shakespeare's plays have become a requirement in
curriculums and education in schools for the purpose of teaching. His history
plays have been implemented to teach about history, in substitution of history
books, as well as his comedies and tragedies are used to teach literary
devices. His personal ideas on romance, love, comedy, and tragedy have
influenced the perception of millions of people today. He is a great and
renounced writer that generates such continual interest through his endless
In Shakespeare’s works we will find tragedy, comedy, history,
romance, fantasy, horror, and a vast range of human experience that is still
poignant in modern times. Shakespeare’s heroes and heroines, villains and
rogues, are amongst English Literature’s most enduring characters. His
language is powerful. He was able to characterize his characters to meet his
The researcher is confident that reading or understanding literature will
develop our insightfullness experiences differently world and culture. In
addition the researcher should confirm that the aim of reading literature is not
just only to enjoy story but to develop an intuitive sense for what is important
in a work. Stylistics, including the discussion of iconic forces of rhetoric
forces, is not intended to replace the enjoyment of literature with mere
comprehension. Stylistics is to confirm literary criticism by supporting
linguistically, language-ased analyzes. Apart from it to some extent is
enjoyfull to escape from surrounding, possibly so impleasant or stressed
situation and intent to quit get rid of such and need to escape from situation
for short periods.
Principally, it is rather an avenue leading to increased enjoyment and
better appreciation through the understanding of the ways in which text have
Shakespeare’s had already been presence.
B. Recomendation
The research was carried out with diligence, through the stages and
procedures that can be accounted for, really tiring. solely because researcher
expects the results of this study might provide good benefits to both the
researcher himself and to others.
This thesis is, of course, not being able to discuss and complete
everything, as a result of the researcher also has restricted himself to the
scope of the discussion as the purpose of this study. However, the researcher
feels still there may be a number of things that can be done by further
researchers. Many topics are open widely
This study would not only be useful for students and lovers of literature
but to teachers of literature as well. In addition, the results of this study are
also important for EFL teachers (English as a foreign language).
Recommendations of this study in the form of each suggestion addressed to
1) ELS and Literature Students, 2) The teachers of literature, (including
literary critics), and 3) The further researchers to related studies.
1. Recomentation for ELS and Literature Students
a. The development of literature has now progressed so rapidly. Studying
literature means to study a life that the author reflected in his works.
Especially for learners of literature, by reading literary work, it can be an
alternative way to develop a character education of a chracter building.
b. By analysing a literary text as a verbal artefact. literary texts is an
effective used for learning literature, as well as developing intuition and
literature sensitivity. It goes to the two sides of a coin, studying
literature with improved language learning, and further learning the
language through literature appreciation.
c. Through a variety of updated literary approaches, methodology of
literary study meets a variety of disciplines. It is now, the research of
literature can be a multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional in nature.
2. Recomendation for the Teachers of Literature
a. Students of literature sometimes feel that he teaching of literature only
revolves around the structure of the work. Though the work will be more
important benefits in connction to a real life. What is happening in the
works of literature that has already been a literary fact that can be
attributed to outside elements of literature. Encourage creativity for
students to broaden their horizons through the study of literature are
part of the responsibilities of the teacher of literature
b. In the teaching of literature in addition to utilizing the intrinsic and
extrinsic elements of the works, the teacher should intensively
introduce other analyses, they are stylistic analysis and literary analysis
of semiotics
c. Language is meaningful. It is often taken to be the paradigm form of the
act of meaning – the core of human semiotic, and a model (a
descriptive norm) for all other form of meaningful behaviour. On the
other hand literature can be used as a source of languages learning (for
instance English). Particularly in the works of Shakespeare that has
many expressions, quotations and memorable sentences, all can be
used as a source of learning the language and at the same time
learners will familiar with the aspects of British culture.
3. Recomentation for Further Related Studies
a. Iconiciy is an aspect of semiotic that is so broad and specific to reveal
the characteristic of language used by the author in his literary work. In
addition to intrinsic aspects, extrinsic aspect is actually able to relate
literature with some other issues beyond.
b. The field of semiotics, especially iconicity has entered a new phase in
the research of literature. Now iconicity research helped to develop the
field of literary texts, ie Iconicity and the language of literature, iconicity
and intertextuality, iconicity in comparative literature, iconicity in
language ad and includes iconic forces of rhetorical figures. As in the
field of language and syntax covering Iconicy, Acoustic Iconicity,
diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language, social relations
and iconic force in literature, rhetoric and congtive in literary work, etc.
These areas open widely for research.
c. The study of stylistics has also extended the other field of
interdisciplinary researchs, figures of rhetoric, rhetoric and stylistics,
semiotics in social communication, rhetoric in politics and so on. Social
relationships can now be studied through the stylistic of speakers and
listener in politics debate.
All recommendations as mentioned above are expected to bring a
maximum benefit to science development which in turn will encourage the
development of the study of literature and iconicity studies of semiotics in the
Last but not least, Malay proverb says "tak ada gading yang tak retak”
(no ivory that is not cracked), as a proper iconic methaporic expression that
may force us to still keep reading and loving literature. Amin!
Abrams, M. H. 1981. A Glossary of Literary Terms, Fourth Edition. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
----------------. 1981. The Mirror and The Lamp. London: Oxford
University Press., London.
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2003. Pokoknya Kualitatif (Dasar-Dasar
Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif). Jakarta:
Pustaka Jaya
Anderson E. 1998. A Grammar and Iconism. Madison N.J: Feirleigh
Dickinsons University Press.
Barnet, Sylvan (Eds). 1964. Dictionary of Literary Terms. Great Britain:
Stephen Printers Ltd.
Barthes, Rolland. 1971. Style and It’s Image, in Chatman Seymour, ed.,
Literary Style, pp. 3-15 London: Oxford University Press.
Barthes, Rolland. 1981. "Theory of the Text" in Unitying the Text: A
Poststructuralist Reader. (Robert Young, Ed.). Boston,
London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Bloomfield, Norton W. 1981. A Brief History of the English Language in
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Morris, William (ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
Butt, David. (Eds) 2001. Using Functional Grammar. Australia: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research –
Macquarie University.
Carter, Roland and Simpson, Paul. 1989. Language, Discourse, and
Literature – An Introductiory Reader in Discourse Stylistics.
London: Routledge.
Clarke, Richard. 2005. Roman Jakobson - Linguistics and Poetics. LITS3304
/Notes 05A, published on (
LITS3304/ 2004-2005/ 05AJakobsonLinguisticsAndPoetics.pdf)
retrived on 12 August, 2014
Clement, Robert J. 1978. Comparative Literature as Academic
Discipline. New York: The Modern Language Association of
Coulthard, Malcolm. 1999. An Inroduction to Discourse Analysis.
Newyork: Longman
Cook, Guy, 1990. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, David and Derek Davy. 1986. Investigating English Style.
London: Longman.
Crystal, David.(ed.) 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language.[2nd edition 2003], Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cummings, Michael & Simmons, Robert. 1986. The Language of
Literarture – A Stylistic Introduction to the Study of Literature.
Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.
Danesi, Marcel & Perron, Paul. 1999. Analyzing Cultures (An
Introduction and Handbook) Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
Dewi, Novita. 2000. In Search of Meaning (A Selected Articles on
Language and Literature). Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma
University Press.
Diaz, Rafael M & Laura E. Berk. 1992. Private Speech: From Social
Interaction to Self-Regulation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Puslishers.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. United States of America:
Indiana University Press
------------------. 1992. “Interpretation and Overinterpretation”. Stefan
Collini (Ed.). New York Port Chester Cambridge University
Endraswara, Suwardi. 2008. “Metodologi Penelitian Sastra.
Epistemologi, Model, Teori, dan Aplikasi”. Yogyakarta: FBS
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
Evans, Sir Ifor. 1967. A Short History of English Literature. Great
Britain: Penguin Books.
Fenk, August, 1997. Representation and Iconicity. Semiotica 115: 215234.
Fischer, Olga and Nanny Max (eds). 2000. The Motivated Sign.
Philadelphia: John Menjamins Publishing Company.
---------. 2008. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Scotland:
Geddes & Grosset
Goldmann, Lucien. 1975. The Genetic Structuralist Methods in the
History of Literature – Towards a Sociology of the Novel.
Trans Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock.
Guerin, Wilfred L., (eds) 1979. A Handbook of Critical Approaches
to Literature. New York: Harper and Row.
Haiman, John. 1980. The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
---------------, ed. 1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Proceeding of a Symposium on
Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, and Text;
Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Australia:
Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1990. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.
London: Edward Arnold.
------------------------. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Third
Edition) New York: Oxford University Press.
Haley, Michael Cabot. 1988. The Semeiosis of Poetic Metaphor.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hardjana, Andre. 1983. Kritik Sastra Sebuah Pengantar. Jakarta: PT
Harun, Sudarmin. 2012. Cultural Values in Buginese Traditional Songs
(unpublished). Makassar: Postgraduate Study in Linguistics –
Hasanuddin University.
Hayakawa, S.I. 1978. Language in Thought and Action. (Fourth
Edition). Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publisher.
Hiraga, Masako K. 1994. Diagrams and Metaphors: Iconic Aspects in
Language. Japan: (Journal of Pragmatics 22 [1994] 5-2)
Faculty of Liberal Arts – Chiba City Japan.
Hirsh, James. 2003. Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies.
Madison New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson Univesity Press.
Hoed, Benny H. 2008. Semiotika dan Dinamika Sosial Budaya. Jakarta:
Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya-Universitas Indonesia.
Holman , C. Hugh. 1984. The Nonfiction-Novel,” American Fiction 19401980: A Comprehensive History and Critical Evaluation. New
York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Hudson, William Henry. 1960. An Introduction to the Study of Literature.
Sydney: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.
------------------------------. 1961. An Introduction to the Study of Literature.
London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.
Innis, Robert E. (ed) 1985. Semiotics : An Introductory Anthology.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In
Sebek, Thomas A., ed., Style in Language, pp 350-77.
Cambridge, Massisipi: MIT Press.
Jost, Francois, 1974, Introducation to Comparative Literature, A
Division of The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., United States of
Junus, Umar. 1981. Mitos dan Komunikasi. Jakarta: Penerbit Sinar
Kramadibrata, Sumarwati P. 1990. Semiotika Cergam. (Presented to
the “Munas II & Pertemuan Ilmiah Nasional III Himpunan
Sarjana Kesusastraan Indonesia”, Hiski-Indonesia, Batu
Malang (unpublished paper)
--------------------------------------. 1991. Semiotika dan Terjemahan.
Presented to the Workshop on “Penataran Pendidikan
Penerjemahan” conducted by Perisai Unhas, Makassar
(unpublished paper)
Kramsch, Claire. 1998. Language and Culture. Toronto (series editor by
H.G. Widdowson): Oxford University Press.
Kurniawan. 2001. Semiologi Roland Barthes. Jakarta: Yayasan
Leech, G.N and M.H. Short. 1984. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic
Introduction to English Factual Prose, London: Longman.
Levin, Harry. 1973. "Literature as an Institution" in “Sociology of
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Lesser, Simon O. 1962. “Fiction and the Unconscious”. New York: State
University Press.
Little, Graham. 1978. Approach to Literature. (fourth edition) Australia:
Southwood Press
Ljungberg, Christina 2009. Shadows, mirrors, and smoke screens:
zooming on iconicity (
retrived on 20 July 2013
Luxemburg, Jan Van & Mieke Bal Willem G.W. Pengantar Ilmu Sastra
(Terjemahan Bahasa Indonesia oleh Dick Hartoko) Jakarta:
Lyne, Raphael. 2011. Shakespeare, Rhetoric and Reconition. Mexico
City: CamridgevUniversity Press.
Lyons, John. 1987. Semantics. (Volume I) Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
MacDonnel, Helen (eds). 1979. England in Literature. USA: Scott,
Foresman and Company
Makka, Mustafa. 2006. A Stylistic Analysis of Les A. Murray’s Selected
Poems; A Symbolic Representation of Contemporary
Australia. (unpublished). Makassar: Postgraduate Study in
Linguistics – Hasanuddin University.
Mangunwijaya, Y.B. 1988. “Sastra dan Religiositas”. Yogyakarta:
Maslow, Abraham, 1970. Motivation and Personality. Second Edition.
New York: Harper and Row, Inc.
Max, Nanny and Fischer, Olga (eds). 1999. Form Miming Meaning
(Iconicity in Language and Literature). Amsterdam: John
Benjamin Publishing Co.
Miler, M.B. and Huberman A.M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Source Book of New Methods, California: Saga Publication,
Morris, William (ed). 1981. The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
Murphy, Sean. 2007. A Corpus Stylistic Approach to Shakespearian
Soliloquies. Lancaster: Lancaster University Postgraduate
Muller, Wolfgang G. 2000. “Iconicity and Rhetoric”, in Fischer, Olga and
Nany Max (eds). 2000. The Motivated Sign. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Noth, Winfried. 1990. Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington and
Indiana: Indiana University Press.
------------------- 2000. “Semiotic Foundation of Iconicity in Language
and Literature”, in Fischer, Olga and Nany Max (eds). 2000.
The Motivated Sign. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Perng, Ching-Hsi. 2008. Who’s the Addressee? Four Types of
Shakesperean Soliloquy. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities
and Social Science, 1:2 (October 2008), 203-222.
Rahman, Fathu, 1985. The Moral Aspect in Some T.S. Eliot’s Poems.
(unpublished) Makassar: Fakultas Sastra Universitas
-------------------. 1999. Dialogue Responses Analysis in John Synge’s
Play Riders to the Sea (A Stylistic Approach). Makassar:
Postgraduate Programme Hasanuddin University (Thesis)
-------------------. 2012. Pelacakan Aspek Budaya melalui Studi Ikonitas
dalam Karya Sastra (published in Prosiding Seminar
Antarbangsa ke-2 Arkeologi, Sejarah dan Budaya di Alam
Melayu). Malaysia: Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu
(ATMA) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Reaske, Christopher R. 1966. How To Analyze Drama. New York:
Monash Press
Rees, R.J. 1973. English Literature - An Introduction for Foreign
Readers. Hongkong: Peninsula Press Ltd
Remak, Henry H. 1971 Comparative Literature, (Newton P. Stalltnech
and Horst Prenz Ed.), Contemporarry Literature: Methode &
Perspective.Illinois: Carbondale & Edwardsville
Ricoeur, Paul. 1977. The Rule of Metaphor. (English Edition) Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Rohrberger, Mary & Samuel H. Woods. 1971. Reading and Writing
about Literature. First Edition. New York : Random House
Segers, Rien T. 1978. “The Evaluation of Literary Texts”. Leiden: The
Peter De Ridder Press.
Sandarupa, Stanislaus. 1989. Tropes, Symbolism, Rhetorical Structure,
Structure of Parallelism, and Parallelism of Structure in Toraja.
Chicago: The University of Chicago
-----------------------------. 2004. Poetics and Politics of the Kingly Death
Ritual in Toraja South Sulawesi Indonesia. Chicago: The
University of Chicago.
-----------------------------. 2012. The Poetry of Taking Power in Toraja
Indonesia. Klult and BKI, p.10
Short, M.H. 1981. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. An
offprint from Applied Linguistics, Vol. II, Number 2, Summer
1981. Oxford Clarendon Press.
Short, M.H. (ed.) (1988) Reading, analysing and teaching literature.
Harlow: Longman.
Short, M. (1995) In P. Verdonk & J. J. Weber (eds.), Twentieth-century
fiction from text to context. London: Routledge.
Staton, Shirley F. (ed). 1987. Literary Theories in Praxis. Philadelphia:
The University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sunardi, St. 2004. Semiotika Negativa. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Buku
Sonesson, Goran. 2009. From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis:
Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sweden:
Department of semiotics/Centre for cognitive semiotics, SOL,
Lund University
Sudjiman, Panuti & Aan van Zoet. 1992. Serba-Serbi Semiotika.
Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Tilak, Raghukul.1985. Background to English Literature (A Study in
Literary Forms). New Delhi: Rama Brothers
Trisman, B., Sulistiati, Marthalena. 2003. Antologi Esai Sastra
Bandingan dalam Sastra Indonesia Modern. Jakarta: Yayasan
Obor Indonesia.
Ullmann, Stephen. 1983. Semantics – An Introduction to the Science of
Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Verdonk, Peter. 2002. Stylistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Wales, Katie. 2001. A Dictionary of Stylistics, (3nd ed). New York:
Pearson/ Longmagn
Wellek, Rene & Warren, Austin.1978. Theory of Literature. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Widdowson, H.G. 1988. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature.
London: Longman.
-----------------------. 1995 Discourse Analysis: a critical review. Language
and Literature, 4(3), 157–72.
Wood, Linda A. & Rolf O. Kroger. 2000. Doing Dscourse Analysis.
London: Sage Publication Ltd.
Internet Sources:
1), (retrived on July
24, 2012).
2) Christina Ljungberg, Shadows, mirrors, and smoke screens: zooming on
iconicity. Retrived on October 15, 2013 from en/
3) (retrived on July 21, 2012)
4) (retrived on
May 3, 2013)
5), (retrived on
Sept 29, 2013)
6) (retrived on Sept
27, 2013).
7) (retrived on April 6,
8) The notion of grammatical metaphor in Halliday, by E. Romero and B.
Soria – Universidad de Granada. ~bsoria/papers/
Grammatical %20 metaphor%20in%20Halliday.PDF, (retrived on April 25,
Appendix 1
Table of Approximate Dates of Shakesperae’s Plays.
Henry VI (2)
Henry VI (3)
Henry VI (1)
Richard II
Midsummer-Night’s Dream.
King John
Merchant of Venice
Richard III
Comedy of Errors
Henry IV (1)
Henry IV (2)
Titus Andronicus
Taming of the Shrew
Much Ado About Nothing
Henry V
Julius Caesar
As You Like It
Twelfth Night
Antony and Cleopatra
Two Gentlemen of Verona
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Romeo and Juliet
Merry Wives of Windsor
Troilus and Cressida
All’s Well That Ends Well
Measure for Measure
King Lear
*adapted from some sources
Timon of Athens
Winter’s Tale
Henry VIII
Two Noble Kinsmen
Appendix 2
The Disribution of Shakespeare’s Plays
Comedies (16)
1 The Tempest,
2 The Two
Gentlemen of
3 The Merry Wives
of Windsor,
4 Measure for
5 The Comedy of
6 Much Ado About
7 Love's Labour's
8 A Midsummer
Night's Dream,
9 The Merchant of
10 As You Like It,
11 The Taming of
12 the Shrew,
All's Well That
13 Ends Well,
14 Twelfth Night,
The Winter's
15 Pericles, Prince
of Tyre*
16 The Two Noble
Tragedies (12)
1 Troilus and
2 Coriolanus,
3 Titus Andronicus,
4 Romeo & Juliet,
5 Timon of Athens,
6 Julius Caesar,
7 Macbeth,
8 Hamlet,
9 King Lear,
10 Othello,
11 Cymbeline,
12 Antony and
Histories (10)
King John,
Richard II,
Henry IV, Part 1,
Henry IV, Part 2,
Henry V,
Henry VI, Part 1,
Henry VI, Part 2,
Henry VI, Part 3,
Richard III,
Henry VIII,
*) not included in the First Folio
**) 16 works of Comedies, Tragedies 12 works, and Histories 10
Appendix 3
The Glossary of Styles
A. Schemes
accumulation: summary of previous arguments in a forceful manner
adnomination: repetition of a word with a change in letter or sound
alliteration: series of words that begin with the same consonant or
sound alike
adynaton: hyperbole taken to such extreme lengths as to suggest a
complete impossibility.
anacoluthon: change in the syntax within a sentence
anadiplosis: repetition of a word at the end of a clause at the
beginning of another
anaphora: repetition of the same word or group of words at the
beginning of successive clauses
anastrophe: inversion of the usual word order
anticlimax: arrangement of words in order of decreasing importance
antimetabole: repetition of words in successive clauses, in reverse
antistrophe: repetition of the same word or phrase at the end of
successive clauses (see epistrophe)
antithesis: juxtaposition of opposing or contrasting ideas
aphaearesis (also spelled apheresis; plural: aphaeareses, adj.
apheretic) is rhetorically deleting a syllable -unaccented or accented from the beginning of a word to create a new term or phrasing
aphorismus: statement that calls into question the definition of a word
aposiopesis: breaking off or pausing speech for dramatic or emotional
apostrophe: directing the attention away from the audience and to a
personified abstraction
apposition: placing of two elements side by side, in which the second
defines the first
assonance: repetition of vowel sounds, most commonly within a short
passage of verse
asteismus: facetious or mocking answer that plays on a word
asyndeton: omission of conjunctions between related clauses
cacophony: juxtaposition of words producing a harsh sound
cataphora: co-reference of one expression with another expression
which follows it (example: If you need one, there's a towel in the top
classification: linking a proper noun and a common noun with an
chiasmus: word order in one clause is inverted in the other (inverted
climax: arrangement of words in order of increasing importance
commoratio: repetition of an idea, re-worded
consonance: repetition of consonant sounds, most commonly within a
short passage of verse
dystmesis: a synonym for tmesis
ellipsis: omission of words
enallage: substitution of forms that are grammatically different, but
have the same meaning
enjambment: breaking of a syntactic unit (a phrase, clause, or
sentence) by the end of a line or between two verses
enthymeme: informal method of presenting a syllogism
epanalepsis: repetition of the initial word or words of a clause or
sentence at the end of the clause or sentence
epistrophe: (also known as antistrophe) Repetition of the same word
or group of words at the end of successive clauses. The counterpart of
euphony: opposite of cacophony - i.e. pleasant sounding
hendiadys: use of two nouns to express an idea when the normal
structure would be a noun and a modifier
hendiatris: use of three nouns to express one idea
homeoptoton: in a flexive language the use the first and last words of
a sentence in the same forms
homographs: words that are identical in spelling but different in origin
and meaning
homonyms: words that are identical with each other in pronunciation
and spelling, but differing in origin and meaning
homophones: words that are identical with each other in
pronunciation but differing in origin and meaning
hypallage: changing the order of words so that they are associated
with words normally associated with others
hyperbaton: schemes featuring unusual or inverted word order
hyperbole: exaggeration of a statement
hysteron proteron: The inversion of the usual temporal or causal
order between two elements
isocolon: use of parallel structures of the same length in successive
internal rhyme: using two or more rhyming words in the same
kenning: a metonymic compound where the terms together form a sort
of anecdote
merism: referring to a whole by enumerating some of its parts
non sequitur: Statement that bears no relationship to the context
onomatopoeia: word that imitates a real sound (e.g. tick-tock or
paradiastole: repetition of the disjunctive pair "neither" and "nor"
parallelism: the use of similar structures in two or more clauses
paraprosdokian: Unexpected ending or truncation of a clause
parenthesis: insertion of a clause or sentence in a place where it
interrupts the natural flow of the sentence
paroemion: resolute alliteration in which every word in a sentence or
phrase begins with the same letter
parrhesia: speaking openly or boldly, or apologizing for doing so
(declaring to do so)
perissologia: the fault of wordiness
pleonasm: use of superfluous or redundant words
polyptoton: repetition of words derived from the same root
polysyndeton: repetition of conjunctions
pun: when a word or phrase is used in two (or more) different senses
sibilance: repetition of letter 's', it is a form of alliteration
sine dicendo: a statement that is so obvious it need not be stated, and
if stated, it seems almost pointless (e.g. 'It's always in the last place
you look.')
spoonerism: interchanging of (usually initial) letters of words with
amusing effect
superlative: declaring something the best within its class i.e. the
ugliest,the most precious
symploce: simultaneous use of anaphora and epistrophe: the
repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning and the
end of successive clauses
synchysis: interlocked word order
synesis: agreement of words according to the sense, and not the
grammatical form
synizesis: pronunciation of two juxtaposed vowels or diphthongs as a
single sound
synonymia: use of two or more synonyms in the same clause or
tautology: redundancy due to superfluous qualification; saying the
same thing twice
tmesis: division of the elements of a compound word
zeugma: is the using of one verb for two actions
B. Tropes
allegory: extended metaphor in which a story is told to illustrate an
important attribute of the subject
alliteration: repetition of the first consonant sound in a phrase.
allusion: indirect reference to another work of literature or art
anacoenosis: posing a question to an audience, often with the
implication that it shares a common interest with the speaker
antanaclasis: a form of pun in which a word is repeated in two
different senses
anthimeria: substitution of one part of speech for another, often
turning a noun into a verb
anthropomorphism: ascribing human characteristics to something
that is not human, such as an animal or a god (see zoomorphism)
antimetabole: repetition of words in successive clauses, but in
transposed grammatical order
antiphrasis: word or words used contradictory to their usual meaning,
often with irony
antonomasia: substitution of a phrase for a proper name or vice versa
aphorism: Tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion, an adage
apocope; it is to delete a syllable or letter from the end of a word
apophasis: invoking an idea by denying its invocation
apostrophe: addressing a thing, an abstraction or a person not
archaism: use of an obsolete, archaic, word (a word used in olden
language, e.g. Shakespeare's language)
auxesis: form of hyperbole, in which a more important sounding word
is used in place of a more descriptive term
catachresis: mixed metaphor (sometimes used by design and
sometimes a rhetorical fault)
circumlocution: "talking around" a topic by substituting or adding
words, as in euphemism or periphrasis
commiseration: evoking pity in the audience
correctio: linguistic device used for correcting one's mistakes, a form
of which is epanorthosis
denominatio: another word for metonymy
double negative: grammar construction that can be used as an
expression and it is the repetition of negative words
dysphemism: substitution of a harsher, more offensive, or more
disagreeable term for another. Opposite of euphemism
epanorthosis: immediate and emphatic self-correction, often following
a slip of the tongue
enumeratio: a form of amplification in which a subject is divided,
detailing parts, causes, effects, or consequences to make a point more
epanodos: repetition in a sentence with a reversal of words. Example:
the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
erotema: synonym for rhetorical question
euphemism: substitution of a less offensive or more agreeable term
for another
exclamation: an emphatic parenthetic addition that is complete in
itself, exclamation differs from interjection in that it usually involves an
emotional response.
hermeneia: repetition for the purpose of interpreting what has already
been said
hyperbaton: words that naturally belong together are separated from
each other for emphasis or effect
hyperbole: use of exaggerated terms for emphasis
hypocatastasis: an implication or declaration of resemblance that
does not directly name both terms
hypophora: Answering one's own rhetorical question at length
hysteron proteron: Reversal of anticipated order of events; a form of
innuendo: having a hidden meaning in a sentence that makes sense
whether it is detected or not
inversion: A reversal of normal word order, especially the placement
of a verb ahead of the subject (subject-verb inversion).
invocation: apostrophe to a god or muse
irony: use of word in a way that conveys a meaning opposite to its
usual meaning
kataphora: repetition of a cohesive device at the end
litotes: emphasizing the magnitude of a statement by denying its
malapropism: using a word through confusion with a word that
sounds similar
meiosis: use of understatement, usually to diminish the importance of
merism: statement of opposites to indicate reality
metalepsis: referring to something through reference to another thing
to which it is remotely related
metaphor: stating one entity is another for the purpose of comparing
them in quality
metonymy: substitution of an associated word to suggest what is
really meant
neologism: the use of a word or term that has recently been created,
or has been in use for a short time. Opposite of archaism
onomatopoeia: words that sound like their meaning
oxymoron: Using two terms together, that normally contradict each
parable: extended metaphor told as an anecdote to illustrate or teach
a moral lesson
paradox: use of apparently contradictory ideas to point out some
underlying truth
paradiastole: extenuating a vice in order to flatter or soothe
paraprosdokian: phrase in which the latter part causes a rethinking or
reframing of the beginning
parallel irony: an ironic juxtaposition of sentences or situations
paralipsis: drawing attention to something while pretending to pass it
paronomasia: a form of pun, in which words similar in sound but with
different meanings are used
pathetic fallacy: using a word that refers to a human action on
something non-human
periphrasis: using several words instead of few
personification/prosopopoeia/anthropomorphism: attributing or
applying human qualities to inanimate objects, animals, or natural
praeteritio: another word for paralipsis
procatalepsis: refuting anticipated objections as part of the main
prolepsis: another word for procatalepsis
proslepsis: Extreme form of paralipsis in which the speaker provides
great detail while feigning to pass over a topic
proverb: succinct or pithy expression of what is commonly observed
and believed to be true
pun: play on words that will have two meanings
repetition: repeated usage of word(s)/group of words in the same
sentence to create a poetic/rhythmic effect
rhetorical question: asking a question as a way of asserting
something. Asking a question which already has the answer hidden in
it. Or asking a question not for the sake of getting an answer but for
asserting something (or as in a poem for creating a poetic effect)
satire: Use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing,
denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. A literary composition, in verse
or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision,
or ridicule. A literary genre comprising such compositions
simile: comparison between two things using like or as
snowclone: quoted or misquoted cliché or phrasal template
superlative: saying that something is the best of something or has the
most of some quality, e.g. the ugliest, the most precious etc.
syllepsis: form of pun, in which a single word is used to modify two
other words, with which it normally would have differing meanings
syncatabasis (condescension, accommodation): adaptation of style
to the level of the audience
synecdoche: form of metonymy, in which a part stands for the whole
synesthesia: description of one kind of sense impression by using
words that normally describe another.
tautology: needless repetition of the same sense in different words
Example: The children gathered in a round circle
transferred epithet: Placing of an adjective with what appears to be
the incorrect noun
truism: a self-evident statement
tricolon diminuens: combination of three elements, each decreasing
in size
tricolon crescens: combination of three elements, each increasing in
zeugma is a figure of speech related to syllepsis, but different in that
the word used as a modifier is not compatible with one of the two
words it modifies
zoomorphism: applying animal characteristics to humans or gods
*the main source of this section is from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/
Figure_of_speech (retrived july, 21 2012)
Appendix 4
List of Key Terms
The term literature, literary text, drama/play, stylistics, semiotics,
iconicity, rhetoric figure, schemes, tropes, endophoric, exophoric,
characters, dialogue, soliloquies, catachresis, and so on are defined
here to obtain an easy and a clear understanding of the terms
(terminologies) used in this study;
catachresis is a completely impossible figure of speech or an
implied metaphor that results from combining other extreme
figures of speech such as anthimeria, hyperbole, synaesthesia,
and metonymy.
context of culture is the historical knowledge, the beliefs,
attitudes, values shared by members of a discourse community,
and that contribute to the meaning of their verbal exchange.
cultural reference is social and intellectual formation, The
totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs,
institutions, and all other products of human works though
charateristic of a community or population, A style of social and
artistic expression peculiar to a society.
drama/play is the specific mode of fiction represented in
performance. The use of "drama" in the narrow sense to
designate a specific type of play. A play is a form of literature
written by a playwright, usually consisting of scripted dialogue
between characters, intended for theatrical performance rather
than just reading. The term "play" can refer to both the written
works of playwrights and to their complete theatrical
performance. In this study drama and play is used
endophoric is a term that means an expression which refers to
something intralinguistic, i.e. in the same text.
exophoric is something is referring to something that the reader
(or audience) is not told about.
genre is a socially sanctioned type of communicative events,
either spoken, like story telling, or printed like novel and so on.
Literary genre is a literary form; examples of literary genres are
poems, novel, shortstory and drama. Tragedy of works can also
be called as one of literary genres
iconicity; in functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in
semiotics, is the conceived similarity or analogy between the
form of a sign (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as
opposed to arbitrariness.
literature is one of social institutions. It is a creative and
imaginative writing which expresses and communicates
thoughts, feelings and attitude towards life. Story telling, in this
context, belongs literature
literary text is a text which contains its own meaning within
itself. Play script can be said one of the literary texts.
linguistic relativity is the theory that a culture can only be
understood on its own terms. It is also sometime called ‘cultural
linguistics as a verbal art is literary work. It can also be called
literary discourse of texs.
phonaestheme is word that contains certain consonant clusters
and / or certain vowel or its alofon that associate to a particular
semantic values.
pragmatics is the study of how the meaning of discourse is
created in particular contexts for particular senders and
rhetorical figure is the ornamen of speech. Another elementary
ancient classification divided rhetorical figures into scheme and
trope. A scheme is a deviation from the ordinary patterns of
words in sentences. A trope involves a semantic deviation. The
distinction underlying the classification can be correlated with
the two dimensions of syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations
(Noth, 2000)
scheme is a deviation from the ordinary patterns of words in
semiotics is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. It is
the study of how meaning is created, not what it is.
soliloquy is a monologue spoken by an actor at a point in the
play when the character believes himself to be alone. The
technique frequently reveals a character's innermost thoughts,
including his feelings, state of mind, motives or intentions. The
soliloquy often provides necessary but otherwise inaccessible
information to the audience.
sosiology of literature is a subfield of sociology of culture. It
studies the social production of literature and its social
stylistic is a study at how language serves a particular aertistic
and produces effect functions
stylistic strategy is the exploitation of the maxim is used as
strategy to produce a certain effect in communication
symbol is conventionalized sign in a society that has been
endowed with special meaning by the members of a given
theme is a topic of discourse or discussion, often expressible as
a phrase, proposition or question, An idea, point of view, or
perception embodied and expanded upon in a work of art. The
idea of a literary work abstracted from its details of language,
character, and action, and cast in the form of a generalization.
tragedy is 1) a dramatic or literary work depicting a protagonist
engaged in a morally significant struggle ending in ruin or
profound disappoinment, 2) any dramatic, disastrous event,
especially one of some moral significance, and 3) the tragic
aspect or element of something. A type of drama in which the
characters experience reversals of fortune, usually for the
worse. In tragedy, catastrophe and suffering await many of the
characters, especially the hero.
tropes involve a semantic deviation. The distinction underlying
the classification can be correlated with the two dimensions of
syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations
Appendix 5
The Brief Synopsis of Nine Selected Plays
A. Histories
1. Richard II
At the royal pad (that would be Windsor Castle), King Richard II
tries to settle a fight between two seriously ticked-off noblemen, Henry
Bolingbroke (the Duke of Hereford) and Thomas Mowbray (the Duke of
Norfolk). Bolingbroke's got a beef with Mowbray and he's come before the
king to officially accuse Mowbray of the following crimes: 1) plotting
against England, 2) stealing money from the crown, and 3) murdering the
king's uncle, Thomas of Woodstock (a.k.a. the Duke of Gloucester).
Mowbray, of course, does NOT appreciate being accused of treason.
Before Richard can make an official decision about who's telling
the truth and who's a big fat liar, Bolingbroke calls for a medieval
smackdown by throwing down his "gage" (a hat or a glove). This is an
official challenge to a "trial by combat," where two "gentlemen" go into an
arena with swords until just one man is left standing. Mowbray reaches
down and picks up Henry Bolingbroke's gage. Game on.
After witnessing a lot of trash talk and even more gage throwing,
King Richard tries to make peace between the two noblemen. But they're
way too fired up and demand to be allowed to hack into each other with
their swords. Eventually Richard gives in and says fine – they can have
their fight. It'll go down at the big tournament arena in Coventry, which
apparently was like the Las Vegas of medieval England when it came to
combat fighting.
In the meantime, over at John of Gaunt's house, Shakespeare lets
the audience in on a little secret: Mowbray did kill the king's Uncle
Gloucester, but King Richard is the one who told him to do it. (Gasp!)
Apparently everybody at court already knows this, but nobody's really
doing anything about it. (Unless you count Bolingbroke, whose recent
charge against Mowbray is obviously his passive-aggressive way of
accusing the king of murder). But when Gloucester's widow begs Gaunt
to avenge her husband's death, Gaunt is all, "Gee, I can't do anything
about it because Richard's the king of England, which means he doesn't
have to answer to anybody but God."
In Coventry, a big crowd gathers at the tournament arena to watch
Mowbray and Bolingbroke go toe to toe. Just as Henry Bolingbroke and
Mowbray are getting pumped up for the big showdown, Richard steps in
at the last minute and... cancels the fight. (Cue the loud boos and
hissing.) Richard says he's changed his mind about the trial by combat
and he's decided that he doesn't want anyone spilling blood all over
England's soil. (That stuff totally stains.) Instead of letting the guys fight,
he's banishing Bolingbroke for ten years and Mowbray forever. (Of
course, everyone knows that Richard doesn't care about spilling blood –
he's just trying to cover up the fact that he's the one who ordered
Mowbray to kill Gloucester.).
When Richard sees that Henry Bolingbroke's dad (John of Gaunt)
is really bummed out about all this banishment business, Richard
changes his mind again and says, something like, "Okay, fine,
Bolingbroke can come back in six years instead of ten – will that make
you happy, Uncle Gaunt?" Gaunt says this is a nice idea but it doesn't
really matter because he's so old and heartbroken that he'll be dead by
the time his son gets to come home. Gaunt's not kidding: soon after
Henry Bolingbroke is booted out of the country, he croaks. But first he
gets in a famous speech about how awesome England used to be until
Richard came along and trashed it by spending all of its money and
leasing out the royal lands. (Actually, these are probably the most famous
lines in the play: "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, / This
earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, / This other Eden, demi-paradise."
You really should read Gaunt's speech. After all, he used up his last
breath to deliver it.) This is when we find out that Richard has not only
blown through England's savings account, but he's also come up with
some rather creative fundraising ideas – he's even leased out some royal
land, which is a big no-no.
It gets worse when Richard finds out Gaunt is dead. Instead of
being sad or feeling guilty about speeding up his death by banishing his
son, Richard thinks he's hit the jackpot. Since Richard is broke and needs
some quick cash to pay for his war in Ireland, he decides to snatch up all
of Gaunt's property to fund his army.
The Duke of York (another one of Richard's uncles / trusted
advisors) thinks this is a terrible idea. He chimes in that taking Gaunt's
property is sort of illegal. As Gaunt's oldest son, Henry Bolingbroke is the
legal heir to all of Gaunt's property, titles, and wealth, so technically,
Richard would be stealing. But Richard couldn't care less. He figures,
"Hey, God's chosen me to be the king of England, so I can do whatever
the heck I want."
So far, the members of the nobility have been willing to let Richard
get away with murder, and they've also pretty much kept quiet about
Richard's bad financial decisions. But apparently, stealing property from a
nobleman is the final straw. (The nobility get all their power from the land
they control, so they're never happy when someone comes along and
tries to take it from them.)
Meanwhile, Henry Bolingbroke is still banished. But instead of
moping around on the couch, watching Family Guy reruns, and ordering
take-out, he's started building an army across the English Channel in
Brittany (northern France). He's also got a bunch of English noblemen on
his side, and the commoners all seem to love him. While Richard's away
in Ireland (fighting that war we mentioned earlier), Henry makes his move.
He shows up in England with a bunch of troops to claim his rightful
inheritance. Richard hightails it back home to confront Henry, but when
he gets there, he finds out that he's got little to no protection. (Apparently,
an army was supposed to meet him there, but when they heard a rumor
that Richard was dead, they decided to leave and go out for pizza
instead.) Now Henry, who's been marching across England to confront
the king, can take back his land.
When Henry Bolingbroke finally corners Richard at Flint Castle, he
orders Richard to... hand over his crown. Huh?! When did Henry decide
he wants to be king? We thought he just wanted his land back. Has he
been planning this all along, or did he just now decide that, what the
heck, why not take Richard's crown, since he can't defend himself?
Seriously – let us know when you work that one out, because it's had
audiences and literary critics scratching their heads for centuries.
Richard has no choice but to give up his crown peacefully, but that
doesn't stop him from kicking up a fuss and being a total drama queen
(drama king, that is). In a theatrical "deposition scene" (where the king is
"deposed," or stripped of his title and power), Richard makes a big show
of removing his crown and handing it over to Henry Bolingbroke (along
with his matching gold wand). Then Richard says a tearful goodbye to his
wife and is imprisoned at Pomfret Castle, where he spends all of his time
moping about his misfortune and trying to figure out who he is now that
he's not king anymore.
While Richard's busy soul searching and making a lot of big,
dramatic speeches about his feelings, King Henry gets down to the
business of ruling England. Henry's got a ton of stuff to worry about, like
figuring out what to do with the ex-king and his loyal followers. Also,
Henry's been trying to track down his good-for-nothing son, Prince Hal,
whom he hasn't seen in three months. (Not a good sign, since this kid is
now heir to the English throne.) We learn that Hal is probably off partying
at one of his favorite bars in London. If he's not there, then he's likely to
be out getting rowdy with his posse of loser friends. (This is
Shakespeare's way of gearing us up for Henry IV Part 1, which is all
about Prince Hal's wild ways.)
Meanwhile, a guy named Exton thinks that King Henry wants him
to make Richard disappear... permanently. We wonder where Exton got
that idea. Oh, we know. Henry looked right at him and said something
like, "Dang, I'm so stressed out. I sure wish I had a friend who loved me
enough to help me get rid of the thing that's causing me so much
anxiety." Hint, hint.
Naturally, Exton kills Richard at Pomfret Castle. But when he
proudly drags Richard's body over to Windsor Castle, Henry is all, "OMG!
What the heck have you done? Who told you to kill Richard?!" When
Exton replies, "From your mouth, my lord, I did this deed," Henry
backpedals. He admits that he wanted Richard dead but he never fesses
up that he actually asked Exton to kill him. (Yep – Henry is being a
hypocrite, all right.).
Henry feels really guilty about the "mix-up," so he does a couple
things to make himself feel better. First he banishes Exton so he doesn't
have to see the guy's face and be reminded of what he's done to the
former king. (Hmm – remind you of anybody else? Like, say, Richard
himself, when he exiled Henry?) Second, Henry orders everyone to be
officially sad about Richard's death. Third, he announces that he's going
to go on a pilgrimage (read: take a road trip to Jerusalem and start a Holy
War) to make up for his sins. He says, "I'll make a voyage to the Holy
Land, / To wash this blood off from my guilty hand." Okay, we really like
the way our new king rhymes, but maybe someone should tell Henry to
go talk to Lady Macbeth. She can probably explain to him how hard it is to
wash a dead king's blood off your hands.
*)adapted from ( retrived on
Sept 28, 2013
2. King Henry V
First things first, Shmoopsters: If you want to brush up on what
went down in Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, or Henry IV Part 2, check out
our summaries, but then come right back because things are getting
seriously juicy at King Henry's royal palace in London.
Back? Good. When Henry V opens, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and his sidekick, the Bishop of Ely, are having a private chitchat about a
bill that's just been reintroduced by Parliament. If passed, the bill would
take a bunch of the Church's land and money and put it in the king's
treasury, which means it would probably be used for stuff like feeding the
poor and funding the king's army. Canterbury isn't exactly thrilled about
the idea of sharing the Church's dough, so he's decided to offer King
Henry a HUGE chunk of change to make the bill disappear... forever. The
extra cash will come in handy, because Henry is thinking of invading
France and making a claim to the French crown, which requires a whole
lot of well-funded troops. (Church corruption? Check. Greed? Check.
Political intrigue? Check. We told you things were getting juicy.)
Citing a loophole in the Salic Law, Canterbury encourages Henry
to invade France and help himself to the throne. Henry, who doesn't
exactly need much convincing, totally agrees that he's got every right to
the French crown, in addition to the English crown. After all, his greatgreat-grandmother was the daughter of a French king, so Henry's
basically got dibs. The French should have absolutely no problem
accepting this just as soon as Henry explains things to them. (Yeah,
Canterbury's advice couldn't come at a better time, because the
French Ambassador just so happens to be visiting England on a
diplomatic mission and he's waiting to talk with Henry. It turns out that
Henry has recently tried to claim some French dukedoms, so the
Ambassador has brought a message from the Dauphin (the French king's
son, who is set to inherit the throne) of France. The message goes
something like this: "Dear Henry. Thanks for your recent letter about your
plans to claim some French territory. I've thought it over and decided that
it's just not going to happen. Your pal, the heir to the French throne. P.S.
In place of the dukedoms you so desperately wanted, please accept my
gift to you, this giant treasure chest that I've gone ahead and filled with
some tennis balls for you to play with." Oh, snap! Henry is furious. How
dare the Dauphin insinuate that he's just a boy who's better off playing a
game of tennis than participating in power politics!
Naturally, Henry's got a message of his own for the Dauphin. It
sounds like this: "Dear Lewis, Thanks for the generous gift! I love it so
much that I'm totally going to get medieval on you and your country by
turning these tennis balls into cannonballs that will rip you and your
friends to shreds. Then I'm going to take your father's crown and make
him polish my new gold wand while I relax on his throne. Sincerely, the
Soon-to-be King of France and England."
Taking a break from all this political drama, Shakespeare checks in
with Henry's old pal Bardolph, who is still hanging out with his low-life
crew (Pistol, Mistress Quickly, and a new guy named Nim) in Eastcheap,
the London slum where Henry used to chill when he was a rowdy young
prince. The word on the street is that Sir John Falstaff (Henry's ex-BFF
and mentor) has been seriously ill. Everybody says he's dying of a broken
heart because Henry banished him. Before we know it, Falstaff dies (offstage) of a nasty venereal disease. After Bardolph and company take a
few minutes to mourn their loss and argue about whether or not Falstaff is
in heaven or hell, the guys run off to France to fight in Henry's army,
leaving Mistress Quickly behind to run her "inn" (which is code for
Meanwhile, we find out about a treacherous plot to have King
Henry assassinated by (gasp!) some of his own friends. Apparently, the
French have paid three English noblemen (Scrope, Grey, and
Cambridge) to kill him. We learn that Cambridge isn't just in it for the
money – he thinks this other guy named Mortimer has a better claim to
the English throne than Henry does. (Remember, Henry V only got to
inherit the throne because one day his dad, Henry IV, took some French
money and put together an army to help him snatch the crown away from
the then King Richard II.) After playing a few mind games with the traitors,
Henry has them executed. Then he hops on a ship and sets sail across
the English Channel so he can snatch the crown away from King Charles
While this is happening, the French talk about whether or not they
should be alarmed that Henry's troops are about to invade France. The
cocky Dauphin thinks that Henry and his army are a bunch of clowns –
the battle will be a piece of cake (or maybe some other delicious French
dessert, like chocolate mousse).
Before we know it, Henry's troops land on the shores of northern
France and invade the town of Harfleur. During the siege, we get to hear
Henry's famous battle cry, "Once more into the breach dear friends, once
While this is happening, Bardolph, Pistol, and Nim stand back and
remain as far away as possible from the action. They say they'd much
rather be back at home in London, enjoying a nice "pot of ale" (kind of like
beer) at their favorite pub. Before we can decide whether or not we think
they're cowardly or just plain smart, we notice that a small group of
Captains (Fluellen, MacMorris, and Jamy) are also standing back as far
away as possible from the fighting. Instead of fighting, these so-called
leaders have a lively debate about the art of warfare while most of the
other soldiers do all the dirty work. (Hmm. Shakespeare is really good at
this irony thing, don't you think?)
After the French call an official time out (which is technically called
a "parley"), Henry stands before the gates of Harfleur and warns the
Governor to surrender now or reap the consequences, which will probably
involve his soldiers 1) raping the town virgins, 2) impaling infants on
spikes, and 3) bashing in the heads of defenseless old men. The
Governor of Harfleur surrenders.
Later, we learn that Bardolph and Nim have been caught looting
(when you steal stuff during a war or a riot) and have been sentenced to
death by hanging. (Dang. Henry's old Eastcheap pals are dropping like
flies. What's up with that?)
Meanwhile, the rest of the English troops are seriously down and
out – they're exhausted and know they're outnumbered by the French
soldiers. The night before the Battle of Agincourt, Henry walks through his
camp and tries to cheer them up. Then, he borrows some dirty old clothes
and disguises himself as a commoner so he can wander around the camp
and get the 411 on what his soldiers are really thinking. It turns out they're
not as excited about warfare as Henry is. They point out that they're the
ones who will probably be killed or who will lose important body parts (like
heads, legs, and arms) during the fighting. The king, on the other hand,
will probably just get captured and ransomed for a bunch of money before
the French ship him back to England with his tail between his legs.
Still disguised, Henry gets into an argument with a guy named
Williams, who wonders if King Henry's war is even justifiable. Either way,
Williams declares that the king is going to be responsible when the
English soldiers are slaughtered in battle. This ticks off Henry, who
argues that, actually, the king is not responsible for the lives of his men,
even though they have to follow his orders and he's just ordered all of
them to fight a battle they'll probably lose. (Um, okay.) When he's alone,
Henry feels sorry for himself and delivers a long, whiny speech about how
hard it is to be a king. (Cue the sad violin music.)
The next morning, the French and English prepare to get their
battle on. To pump up his small crew of soldiers, Henry delivers one of
the most famous motivational war speeches of all time, which includes
the following lines: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; / For he
today that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother." Henry
convinces his troops that it's actually better that they're so outnumbered
because, this way, when they stomp all over the French, there will be a lot
more honor for each of them. (This is sort of like how sharing a delicious
pepperoni pizza with a small group of friends is better than sharing it with
the entire school because everybody gets more.)
Miraculously, the English win the Battle of Agincourt and suffer
only a handful of losses. Only four English nobles and 25 commoners
have been killed. The French, on the other hand, have lost a boatload of
men. We're not exactly sure how this happens because Shakespeare
leaves the details a little fuzzy, but Henry promptly attributes the victory to
God and warns that, if anyone says otherwise, they'll be put to death.
After the battle, Henry goes back to England, where they throw a
big parade for him. He then returns to France to work out the details of a
peace treaty with King Charles and Queen Isabel of France. Henry's got a
big list of demands, including the right to marry the French princess,
Catherine. Then something totally bizarre happens. Even though Henry
knows that Catherine will be his wife, he tries to get all romantic and woos
her anyway, begging her to marry him (as if she has a choice). King
Charles agrees to the terms of the treaty and declares that Henry and
Catherine can get hitched ASAP since the union will unite France and
England. (Time for wedding cake!)
Unfortunately, Shmoopsters, this triumphant feeling doesn't last
long – during the play's Epilogue, the Chorus comes out on stage and
says something like, "By the way, we don't have time to show what
happens next but it's not good. As we all know, Henry dies and his son,
Henry VI, totally loses France.
*adapter from ( retrived
on Sept 28, 2013)
B. Tragedy
1. Romeo and Juliet
Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy written early in the career of
playwright William Shakespeare about two young star-crossed lovers
whose deaths ultimately unite their feuding families. It was among
Shakespeare's most popular plays during his lifetime and, along with
Hamlet, is one of his most frequently performed plays. Today, the title
characters are regarded as archetypal young lovers.
Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances
stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated
into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke
in 1562 and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in
1582. Shakespeare borrowed heavily from both but, to expand the plot,
developed supporting characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris. Believed
written between 1591 and 1595, the play was first published in a quarto
version in 1597. This text was of poor quality, and later editions corrected
it, bringing it more in line with Shakespeare's original.
Shakespeare's use of dramatic structure, especially effects such as
switching between comedy and tragedy to heighten tension, his expansion
of minor characters, and his use of sub-plots to embellish the story, has
been praised as an early sign of his dramatic skill. The play ascribes
different poetic forms to different characters, sometimes changing the form
as the character develops. Romeo, for example, grows more adept at the
sonnet over the course of the play.
Romeo and Juliet has been adapted numerous times for stage,
film, musical and opera. During the English Restoration, it was revived and
heavily revised by William Davenant. David Garrick's 18th-century version
also modified several scenes, removing material then considered
indecent, and Georg Benda's operatic adaptation omitted much of the
action and added a happy ending. Performances in the 19th century,
including Charlotte Cushman's, restored the original text, and focused on
greater realism. John Gielgud's 1935 version kept very close to
Shakespeare's text, and used Elizabethan costumes and staging to
enhance the drama. In the 20th century the play has been adapted in
versions as diverse as George Cukor's multi-Oscar-nominated 1936
production, Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version, and Baz Luhrmann's 1996
MTV-inspired Romeo + Juliet.
The play, set in Verona, begins with a street brawl between
Montague and Capulet supporters who are sworn enemies. The Prince of
Verona intervenes and declares that further breach of the peace will be
punishable by death. Later, Count Paris talks to Capulet about marrying
his daughter, but Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites
him to attend a planned Capulet ball. Lady Capulet and Juliet's nurse try
to persuade Juliet to accept Paris's courtship.
Meanwhile, Benvolio talks with his cousin Romeo, Montague's son,
about Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from
unrequited infatuation for a girl named Rosaline, one of Capulet's nieces.
Persuaded by Benvolio and Mercutio, Romeo attends the ball at the
Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. However, Romeo instead
meets and falls in love with Juliet. After the ball, in what is now called the
"balcony scene", Romeo sneaks into the Capulet orchard and overhears
Juliet at her window vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred
of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to
be married. With the help of Friar Laurence, who hopes to reconcile the
two families through their children's union, they are secretly married the
next day.
Juliet's cousin Tybalt, incensed that Romeo had sneaked into the
Capulet ball, challenges him to a duel. Romeo, now considering Tybalt his
kinsman, refuses to fight. Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as
well as Romeo's "vile submission," and accepts the duel on Romeo's
behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the
fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays
Montague argues that Romeo has justly executed Tybalt for the
murder of Mercutio. The Prince, now having lost a kinsman in the warring
families' feud, exiles Romeo from Verona, with threat of execution upon
return. Romeo secretly spends the night in Juliet's chamber, where they
consummate their marriage. Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees
to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses
to become Paris's "joyful bride." When she then pleads for the marriage to
be delayed, her mother rejects her.
Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a drug that
will put her into a death-like coma for "two and forty hours." The Friar
promises to send a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan, so that he
can rejoin her when she awakens. On the night before the wedding, she
takes the drug and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the
family crypt.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and, instead,
Romeo learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar.
Heartbroken, Romeo buys poison from an apothecary and goes to the
Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet
privately. Believing Romeo to be a vandal, Paris confronts him and, in the
ensuing battle, Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he
drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs
herself with his dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the
tomb to find all three dead. Friar Laurence recounts the story of the two
"star-cross'd lovers". The families are reconciled by their children's deaths
and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy
for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and
her Romeo.
*) adapted from ( wiki/Romeo and_Juliet#cite note-3)
2. Julius Caesar
In February, 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, a Roman statesman and
general, return to Rome after a great victory. The common people take a
day’s holiday to welcome him but te tribunes are afraid of Caesar’s power
and ambition. A man who claims that he can foretell the future warns
Caesar that March 15th (called in the calendar of the Ides of March) will
be a day of danger for him. Cassius and Brutus, with other Roman nobles,
fear that Caesar wants to become king; they wish Italy to remain a
republic. As a great ceremony Caesar is three times offered the crown by
his friend and supporter, Mark Antony. He refuses it, althought unwillingly.
Brutus decides that Caesar must die and that will join in the conspiracy
againsts him. It is agreed that Caesar shall be killed on the Ides of March;
Anttony’s life is to be spared.
But on this day, March 15th, Caesar’s wife, frightened by the
terrible srm of the previous night and by the hideous dream she had had,
persuades Caesar to stay safely at home. Decius Brutus, however, anothe
of the conspirator, flatters and shames Caesar into going to the Capitol.
There the conspirtors ask that a man whom Caesar has banihed from
Rome may be allowed to return. When Caesar refuses, Casca and the
rest stab him. Antony, allowed by Brutus to speak at Caesar;s funral,
arouses the people aginst the conspirators; Cssius and Brutus have to
flee for their lives.
Three men, Antony, Octavius (ephew of Julius Caesar) and
Lepidus, become the rulers of Rome; they make a list of their enemies
who are to die. Antony explains to Octavius that they will allow Lepidus to
share their power only a long as it suits them to do so. Brutus and Cassius
jon forces near Sardis; Brutus has already heard that his wife Portia has
killed herself in Rome. He and Cassius quarred but become good frinds
again, and Cassius agrees, although unwillingly, tha thy shall march to
Philippi to fight tere against Antony and Octavius. The ghost of Caesar
appear to Brutus; they are to meet again at Philippi. In the battle there,
Antony and Octavius are victorious; Cassius, fearing capture and
disgrace, also his slave to kill him. Brutus runs on his own sword. So the
spirit of Caesar is avenged. (taken from Bernand Lott (general editor),
1959, Longman Green Co Ltd, London, pp. v-vi)
3. King Lear
The story opens in ancient Britain, where the elderly King Lear is
deciding to give up his power and divide his realm amongst his three
daughters, Cordelia, Regan, and Goneril. Lear's plan is to give the largest
piece of his kingdom to the child who professes to love him the most,
certain that his favorite daughter, Cordelia, will win the challenge. Goneril
and Regan, corrupt and deceitful, lie to their father with sappy and
excessive declarations of affection. Cordelia, however, refuses to engage
in Lear's game, and replies simply that she loves him as a daughter
should. Her lackluster retort, despite its sincerity, enrages Lear, and he
disowns Cordelia completely. When Lear's dear friend, the Earl of Kent,
tries to speak on Cordelia's behalf, Lear banishes him from the kingdom.
Meanwhile, the King of France, present at court and overwhelmed
by Cordelia's honesty and virtue, asks for her hand in marriage, despite
her loss of a sizable dowry. Cordelia accepts the King of France's
proposal, and reluctantly leaves Lear with her two cunning sisters. Kent,
although banished by Lear, remains to try to protect the unwitting King
from the evils of his two remaining children. He disguises himself and
takes a job as Lear's servant. Now that Lear has turned over all his wealth
and land to Regan and Goneril, their true natures surface at once. Lear
and his few companions, including some knights, a fool, and the disguised
Kent, go to live with Goneril, but she reveals that she plans to treat him
like the old man he is while he is under her roof. So Lear decides to stay
instead with his other daughter, and he sends Kent ahead to deliver a
letter to Regan, preparing her for his arrival. However, when Lear arrives
at Regan's castle, he is horrified to see that Kent has been placed in
stocks. Kent is soon set free, but before Lear can uncover who placed his
servant in the stocks, Goneril arrives, and Lear realizes that Regan is
conspiring with her sister against him.
Gloucester arrives back at Regan's castle in time to hear that the
two sisters are planning to murder the King. He rushes away immediately
to warn Kent to send Lear to Dover, where they will find protection. Kent,
Lear, and the Fool leave at once, while Edgar remains behind in the
shadows. Sadly, Regan and Goneril discover Gloucester has warned Lear
of their plot, and Cornwall, Regan's husband, gouges out Gloucester's
eyes. A servant tries to help Gloucester and attacks Cornwall with a sword
– a blow later to prove fatal.
News arrives that Cordelia has raised an army of French troops
that have landed at Dover. Regan and Goneril ready their troops to fight
and they head to Dover. Meanwhile, Kent has heard the news of
Cordelia's return, and sets off with Lear hoping that father and daughter
can be reunited. Gloucester too tries to make his way to Dover, and on the
way, finds his own lost son, Edgar.
Tired from his ordeal, Lear sleeps through the battle between
Cordelia and her sisters. When Lear awakes he is told that Cordelia has
been defeated. Lear takes the news well, thinking that he will be jailed
with his beloved Cordelia – away from his evil offspring. However, the
orders have come, not for Cordelia's imprisonment, but for her death.
Despite their victory, the evil natures of Goneril and Regan soon
destroy them. Both in love with Gloucester's conniving son, Edmund (who
gave the order for Cordelia to be executed), Goneril poisons Regan. But
when Goneril discovers that Edmund has been fatally wounded by Edgar,
Goneril kills herself as well.
As Edmund takes his last breath he repents and the order to
execute Cordelia is reversed. But the reversal comes too late and Cordelia
is hanged. Lear appears, carrying the body of Cordelia in his arms. Mad
with grief, Lear bends over Cordelia's body, looking for a sign of life. The
strain overcomes Lear and he falls dead on top of his daughter. Kent
declares that he will follow his master into the afterlife and the noble Edgar
becomes the ruler of Britain.
*)adapted from ( kinglearps.
4. Othello
We start out in Venice, Italy, land of love and water. We meet two
guys early on: Iago and Roderigo. Iago, who's been taking money from
Roderigo in some sort of "arrangement," is upset at "the Moor," a.k.a.
Othello, our tragic hero. Othello is a general in the Venetian army, and he
just chose another man, Cassio, to be his lieutenant. This angers Iago,
who wanted the position for himself.
Iago and Roderigo decide to get back at Othello by making a
nighttime visit to Brabantio, the father of Desdemona (a.k.a. the woman
Othello has recently eloped with). When Iago and Roderigo tattle on
Othello for marrying Desdemona without her father's permission,
Brabantio rushes to his daughter's room and discovers that she is missing.
According to the angry father, this must mean that "the Moor" somehow
"tricked" his daughter into whatever the two of them are doing together.
Cut to Othello in the next day or so, who's hanging out with Iago
and talking about his , new wife, Desdemona. Trouble is brewing since
Brabantio is a senator and therefore rather influential. It's clear that he'll try
to split the pair up. But Othello isn't worried. Since he's legendary in the
Venetian military, he believes his service record will get him through just
fine. He adds that he really loves Desdemona, too.
The conversation is interrupted by Michael Cassio (the guy who
got the lieutenant position over Iago), who says the Duke of Venice needs
to see Othello right away, because there's some military action going
down in Cyprus. Before everyone can peacefully exit, Brabantio shows up
with Roderigo and various henchmen, ready to kill Othello or at least maim
him severely for having the audacity to marry his daughter. Looks like
everyone is off to see the Duke and settle the matter.
Once we get to the Duke, Othello speaks in his defense: he says
Desdemona was an equal participant in their courting, and there was no
trickery involved. They're now very much in love and married. Our woman
in question, i.e. Desdemona, finally arrives and confirms the whole story.
At this, the Duke tells Brabantio to stop whining and sends Othello to fight
the battle in Cyprus. Desdemona states that she'll come along, as do Iago,
his wife Emilia, Cassio, and Roderigo.
Iago and Roderigo have a little conversation during which
Roderigo complains about being lovesick for Desdemona, and Iago says
he'll get them together as soon as they bring down Othello. Once alone,
Iago reveals a rumor that Othello was having sex with Iago's wife, Emilia.
(The rumor is totally untrue and it's not even clear that Iago believes it.) To
get revenge, he'll take out Cassio and Othello by convincing Othello that
Cassio is having sex with Othello's wife, Desdemona.
So our cast of characters gets transported to Cyprus, where
instead of battle there's just a big party (long story, read your play for the
details). We note that Cassio is a ladies man, especially around Emilia.
While on watch together, Iago gets Cassio drunk and orchestrates a fight
between him and Roderigo.
Othello intervenes and fires Cassio for being belligerently drunk
instead of doing his job. Iago then convinces Cassio that he should ask
Desdemona to tell Othello to give him back his job. Once alone, Iago
schemes more about how he's going to convince Othello that Desdemona
is having an affair with Cassio.
Cassio talks to Desdemona and she agrees to try to convince her
husband to give Cassio his job back. As Othello is seen approaching,
Cassio slinks off, not wanting to have an awkward moment with the guy
that just fired him. Iago (entering with Othello) notes how suspicious it is
that Cassio hurried off like that. Once the two men are alone, Iago plants
(and massively fertilizes) the seed of suspicion. Cassio, he hints, is having
an affair with Desdemona. He warns Othello to keep his eye out for
anything suspicious, like Desdemona talking about Cassio all the time and
pleading for his job back.
Othello is so upset he gets physically ill. Once Desdemona is back,
she tries to bandage his head playfully with the "special handkerchief"
Othello once gave her, a symbol of their undying love, an heirloom from
his dead mother, and eventually the cause of a whole lot of trouble –
which is why we later call it "the handkerchief of death."
To make a long story short, Emilia steals the handkerchief for her
husband Iago, whom we learn has asked for it repeatedly in the past. Iago
plants the handkerchief of death in Cassio's room. Othello enters, and
Iago furthers Othello's suspicions with the aid of various outright lies.
When Othello learns about the handkerchief, he decides that Desdemona
is cheating on him, and because of that, she has to die.
The next scene brings us to Othello arguing with Desdemona while
Emilia watches. He wants to know where the handkerchief is and
Desdemona, oblivious, wants to talk about Cassio. Fighting ensues.
Shortly afterwards, we meet Bianca, a prostitute who's in love with
Cassio. Cassio gives her the handkerchief he got from Iago, and swears
it's not a love token from another woman. Some time later, Iago sets up a
conversation between himself and Cassio, in which he gets Cassio to
speak provocatively about Bianca. According to Iago's plan, somehow
Othello, hiding and listening in, will think Cassio's speaking of
Desdemona. So while Cassio is saying, "Yeah, I gave it to her good,"
Othello is thinking, "I'm going to kill that guy."
To make matters even worse, Bianca storms in and throws the
special handkerchief in Cassio's face, having discovered that it indeed
belonged to another woman. She storms out, with Cassio following behind
her. Othello rages for a bit, and Iago advises that he strangle Desdemona.
The next time the couple interacts, Othello hits her in the face (in front of a
messenger from Venice telling him he has to go back home). Shortly after
that, Othello yells at his wife, calling her a "whore," a "strumpet," and lots
of other hurtful names. Filled with jealousy and indignation, he eventually
resolves to kill his wife.
Back on the other manipulation front, Roderigo is getting tired of
Iago taking all his money and not delivering the goods (i.e., Desdemona),
as promised. Iago tells him to cool his jets, and also to kill Cassio when
the opportunity arises, which, according to Iago, will happen that night
between midnight and 1:00 AM.
Meanwhile, Desdemona and Emilia are talking together, and
Desdemona begins to act strangely, foreshadow her own death. She
sings of it, too. Emilia, meanwhile, defends the act of cheating on one's
spouse, especially if there's a good reason for it.
Iago and Roderigo hang out, waiting for Cassio. Roderigo tries to
stab Cassio, fails, gets stabbed himself, and looks to be in trouble until
Iago sneaks up and stabs Cassio in the leg. Two Venetian gentlemen run
in at the sound of Cassio's screaming. Iago pretends he just stumbled in
himself, declares Roderigo to be the assailant, and stabs Roderigo to
death before the man can claim otherwise. Bianca runs in and screams a
bit, and Iago tries to pin the mess on her. Emilia enters and Iago weaves
her a lying tale. He instructs her to tell Othello and his wife about the
Othello, meanwhile, kills Desdemona, just as Emilia enters the
room. In this moment of confusion, Emilia reports (incorrectly) to Othello
that Cassio killed Roderigo. Othello is furious to find that Cassio is still
alive, as that was definitely not the plan. Emilia finally puts two and two
together and realizes her own husband is the cause of everyone's
As people pour into the room, Emilia outs Iago for being a rat. Iago
promptly stabs his wife, but not so promptly that the truth can't come out
first. Othello demands to know why Iago ruined his entire life, but Iago
refuses to give him (and us) a good reason. The Venetian gentlemen
decide to take Othello back to Venice to face his punishment for killing his
wife, and Cassio inherits Othello's post in Cyprus. Othello, overwhelmed
by grief, decides to end his life rather than live without Desdemona.
( retrived on Sept 28, 2013
C. Comedies
1. The Merchant of Venice
The Merchant of Venice opens on a street in Venice, where
Antonio, a Venetian merchant, complains of a sadness he can't quite
explain. His friends suggest they'd be sad too if they had as much
merchandise to worry about as Antonio. Apparently all of his money is
tied up in various sea ventures to exotic locales. But Antonio is certain it's
not money that's bothering him.
Antonio's friend Bassanio enters the scene, and we learn that
Bassanio has been at the forefront of Antonio's mind. Apparently
Bassanio just got back from a secret trip to see an heiress named Portia
in Belmont. Bassanio financed his trip (and in fact, his entire lifestyle) by
borrowing tons of money from Antonio. Portia is beautiful, intelligent, and,
most important, rich. If Bassanio could only get together the appearance
of some wealth, he would be in a good position to compete with all the
other guys vying for Portia's attention. If they marry, he's all set
financially. Antonio would be happy to lend Bassanio the money he needs
to woo Portia, except, as we know, all of Antonio's money is at sea. The
two friends part ways, agreeing that they'll try to raise the funds on
Antonio's credit around town.
Meanwhile, even rich heiresses have their troubles. Portia is
plagued by suitors from the four corners of the earth but isn't allowed to
choose the one she wants. Instead, her father, before his death, devised
an unusual test. Three caskets – one gold, one silver, and one lead – are
laid out before each suitor, and whoever picks the right one gets the girl.
Portia complains about all of the important men who come to see her, as
there's something wrong with each of them.
As Portia is trying to figure out how to avoid marrying, Bassanio is
trying to figure out how to marry her. He negotiates with the Jewish
moneylender, Shylock, asking for 3,000 gold coins (ducats). Bassanio
borrows the money on his friend Antonio's credit. Trouble is, Antonio is an
anti-Semite (he is prejudiced against Jewish people) and is offensive to
Shylock whenever he has the chance. Slyly, Shylock says he'll try out
Antonio's method of business by lending him the money interest-free.
BUT, this is on the condition that Antonio signs a bond promising that if
the debt goes unpaid, Antonio will give Shylock a pound of his own flesh.
This seems like a good idea at the time, as Antonio is sure he'll have
earned the money from his ships before Shylock's due date.
Before we have time to think about what a crazy idea it is to
promise anyone a pound of your flesh, we're back at Belmont learning the
rules of the casket game. Choose wrong, and not only do you fail to get
Portia, but you cannot marry anyone for the rest of your life. We see
suitors fail when they choose the wrong caskets.
Meanwhile, Jessica (Shylock's only child) tells us that living in
Shylock's house is pure hell and that she's ashamed to be his daughter.
She has decided to elope with Lorenzo and convert to Christianity.
Jessica gets her chance to carry out her rebellious scheme when her dad
leaves the house to go to have dinner. As soon as he is out the door,
Jessica steals off with her lover, Lorenzo, and helps herself to a chunk of
Dad's cash. Bassanio and some of his pals set off for Belmont in hopes
that Bassanio will snag the beautiful and rich Portia.
We also learn from some gossipy cats in Venice that Shylock was
livid when he learned his daughter ran away, screaming "'My daughter! O
my ducats! O my daughter! / Fled with a Christian! O my Christian
ducats!" (2.8.2). This is good news for Antonio, who hates Shylock. But
Antonio doesn't stay happy for long, as he is too busy recovering from the
fact that Bassanio has gone off to woo Portia.
Back in gossipy Venice, we hear that Antonio's ships have been
sinking left and right. Shylock shows up, still mad about his daughter's
rebellion, but he's excited to hear that he'll get to take a pound of flesh
from his enemy Antonio. He explains to the gossipy men that he hates
Antonio because Antonio hates him for being Jewish. Shylock then gives
a beautiful speech in defense of the humanity of Jews, including the wellknown lines, "if you prick us, do we not bleed?" He concludes that a Jew
is not unlike a Christian, and a Christian in this situation would seek
revenge. Therefore, he will do the same, because the Christians have
taught him hatred with their cruelty. Shylock is further angered to hear
reports that his daughter is off lavishly spending his money, so he sets up
arrangements to have Antonio jailed, cut, and killed.
Back in Belmont, Portia is batting off the men. But she is truly
excited by Bassanio. Bassanio impressively chooses the lead casket
(correct) and wins Portia and her wealth. Portia is falling all over herself
with love for Bassanio when Lorenzo and Jessica arrive with news that
Antonio is about to die at Shylock's command. Portia offers to pay off
Antonio's debt, and she and Bassanio have a quick (as in shotgun-quick)
wedding before she sends Bassanio back to Venice with 20 times the
debt owed to Shylock. Portia gives Bassanio a ring and makes him
promise never to take it off, which we're sure is going to be significant
sometime soon.
Meanwhile, Portia has hatched a plan to cross-dress and pose as
a lawyer to argue Antonio's defense at his trial. She tells Lorenzo to look
after her house, disguises herself and Nerissa as men, and sets off for
Venice in a hurry. Also, Graziano randomly marries Nerissa.
The scene moves to the court in Venice. Everyone has tried to
plead with Shylock, but he won't hear reason. He wants justice, and that
means having a pound of Antonio's flesh, as promised. It seems there's
no hope until a young, effeminate-looking man shows up who happens to
be a learned lawyer. He is called Balthazar (a.k.a. Portia). Portia (as
Balthazar) then begins to argue that Shylock should have mercy on
Antonio, as mercy is a higher order good than justice. Shylock says he
doesn't need mercy, he's fine with just justice, thank you very much.
There's no way anyone can get around it – Antonio signed the bond, the
Duke won't bend the rules, and Shylock won't relent. Antonio doesn't care
if he dies. Bassanio says he wishes he could trade his wife and his life for
Antonio's, which does not please his wife, but she doesn't say anything
because she's disguised in drag.
Portia (as Balthazar) gets Antonio ready to go under the knife, but
she stops just short as Shylock is sharpening his knife. She says the
bond entitles Shylock to a pound of flesh, but if he spills a drop of
Christian blood, then he'll be guilty of plotting to murder a Venetian
Christian, the penalty for which is losing everything he has. Shylock says
something like, "Fine, just give me the three-times-the-debt cash you
offered me earlier," and Portia replies, "Actually, that offer's not on the
table anymore." Then he says, "OK, just give me the 3,000 back," and
she returns, "Actually, that's not on the table either."
The slippery downward slope continues until Shylock declares that,
fine, he'll just leave, and Portia stops him and says since he conspired to
kill a Venetian he actually has to forfeit everything he owns. And beg for
his life.
Finally holding the upper hand, Antonio decides that as
punishment, Shylock has to sign an agreement saying that when he dies,
all his money will go to Jessica and her new Christian husband. Also,
Shylock must convert to Christianity. Shylock leaves a broken man. Portia
grabs Nerissa and tries to get home before the men return and find out
their wives were the ones in court that day. Antonio and Bassanio try to
get Balthazar to accept a gift before he goes, and though Portia (as
Balthazar) tries to refuse it, the men press her. She asks for Bassanio's
ring (which is really her ring, symbolizing their marriage trust). Bassanio
refuses to give it to her, but then Antonio suggests he's whipped and
foolish, so Bassanio caves in and gives Balthazar the ring at the last
Finally everyone gets home to Belmont; the women have narrowly
arrived before the men. Nerissa launches into a fight with Graziano about
the missing ring (as it turns out, she too gave a ring symbolizing marital
fidelity), accusing him of giving it to a woman. Portia then lights into
Bassanio for the same thing. Portia complains about the men breaking
faith for this lawyer guy, and she pledges to sleep with this learned man
too, breaking her marriage vows like Bassanio did by giving up her ring.
Antonio has come home to Belmont with them and he feels
responsible for the fights. To make up for it he promises his soul as a
guarantee that Bassanio will be faithful to Portia. Portia accepts the offer
of Antonio's soul and she gives him a ring to give to Bassanio. Turns out
it's the original ring. Portia explains that she and Nerissa were the young
lawyer and the clerk who rescued Antonio from Shylock. Also, she's got a
letter that says some of Antonio's ships have come home with cash after
all. The play ends with happiness for most of the characters in the play –
all except Shylock.
(, retrived on
Sept 29, 2013)
2. A Midsummer Night’s Dream
This story is supposed to take place in ancient times. Theseus,
Duke of Athens, and Hippolyta, Queen of Amazons, are about to be
married. An old man named Egeus comes to Theseus and asks him to
force Hermia, the Daughter of Egeus, to marry the young Demetrius.
Hernia has refused because she is in love with another young man,
Lysander. As for Demetrius who now wishes to marry Hermia, he has
broken his earlier promise to marry Helena, Hermia’s friend since their
schooldays, who still loves him. Theseus gives Hermia time to think it
over until the day of his own marriage. But meanwhile Hermia and
Lysander plan secretly to escape through the woods. Demetrius hears of
this plan. He decides to follow them and Helena decides to follow him.
A group of working men in Athens,of whom Bottom the weaver is
the most active and talkative, wishes to perform a play at the court of
Theseus in Honour of his marriage, and decides to practise in the woods.
In these woods live the fairies. Their king and queen, Oberon and
Titania, have quarrelled; as a result the weather is upset and the crops are
spoiled. Oberon calls puck (or Robin Goodfellow), a spirit who likes to play
tricks on people, and orders him to pick a magic flower. Its juice, put on
the eyes of a sleeping person, makes that person fall madly in love with
the first living thing he or she sees on walking up. Oberon hopes in this
way to bewitch Titania and punish her.
Lysander and Hermia, Demetrius and Helena all come to the
woods t night. So do Bottom and his companions. Through Puck’s
mistakes, some very complicated missunderstandings are brought about.
The queen of the fairies falls in love with bottom, who has been bewitched
by Puck so hat he has the head of a donkey. Lysander and Demetrius,
who had been rivals for helena instead. The two girls quarrel. These
confusion go on all through the night until, just before sunrise, Oberon
takes off the magic charm. Bottom get his own head back; Oberon and
Titania put an endto their quarrel. When Theseus and Hippolyta come
through the woods hunting next morning, thay find and wake up the
sleeping lovers. All is well again. Lysander and Hermia are united in love,
and so are Demetrius and Helena.
Back in Athens, Theseus and Hippolyta celebrate their marriage,
and the two pairs of lovers are married at the same time as their rules.
Egeus has been ordered to agree to this and there is general rejoicing.
Bottom and his companions act their play before the ladies and
gentlemen, much to everyone’s amusement. At the end Oberon and
Titania, with their fairies and elves, come to dance, sing and bless the
marriage, while Puck stays to sweep th place.
Even from this short account it will be seen how cleverly this quite
differents groups of people are brought together and their adventures
made into a pattern. The groups are (i) the young lovers; (II) the ordinary
working men; (iii) the fairies. At first we are introduced to them separately,
group by group. Then in the wood, as a result of Puck’s magic, they come
into contact with one another in set of missunderstanding which become
over wilder and more laughable. Lastly, all three groups brought into
harmony under the wish autority of Theseus and Hipolyta, so that love and
happiness prevail.
But in a good play the interest lies in more qualities than just a
cleverly made pattern of evens. There are the characters them selves, and
their way of acting and thinking. There are the different forms through
which they express themselves, in verse and prose. Most important,
perhaps is the total effect the play has on our minds; the shaping of our
sympathies in such matters as love, marriage and loyalty with which the
play is concerned. For while there is much to laugh at in A Midsummer
Night’s dream, and much beauty to enjoy, there is also a serious view of
life and human behaviour which gradually reveals itself (taken from
Bernand Lott (general editor), 1961, Longman Green Co Ltd, London, pp.
3. Love’s Labour’s Lost
Ferdinand, King of Navarre, opens the play by declaring that his court will
be devoted to ascetic study for three years—and, to keep the distractions
to a minimum, no women will be allowed within a mile of the court.
Berowne, Longaville, and Dumaine agree to devote themselves with the
King (although Berowne expresses reservations about the venture and its
chances for success). Berowne also points out that the king has forgotten
an embassy that very day with the Princess of France. As they set out to
meet the princess, the king's fool, Costard, is sent to Don Armado to
receive punishment for breaking the king's commands with the country
wench, Jacquenetta.
Needless to say, the Princess and her entourage are put off when
Ferdinand and his lords deny them entrance into the court. In protest, the
embassy camps in front of the court. Boyet makes note of the king's
"affection" toward the Princess, and the ladies retreat to their tents to plan
how they can get back at Ferdinand and his court. In the meantime,
Armado—who is himself in love with Jacquenetta—strikes a deal with
Costard to let him off if Costard will deliver a letter to the wench. Before
Costard can do so, however, Berowne finds him and asks him to take a
letter to Rosaline. This sets up a highly comic series of errors as Costard
manages to deliver Jacquenetta's letter to the Princess of France and
Rosaline's letter to Jacquenetta.
At this point, King Ferdinand and his lords overhear one another
professing their love for their respective ladies and to a man decide that
their oaths are better off left for dead while the women are around. When
the lords pay a visit to the ladies in disguise, however, the ladies turn the
tables on them with disguises of their own. When the men return as
themselves, the women continue to bait them with their own words,
delighting in the men's confusion. Just when they begin to sort things out
and sit down for a pageant, a messenger arrives to inform the Princess
that her father has died, and she must leave immediately. The Princess
tells Ferdinand that if he spends one year's time cloistered in a remote
hermitage—his penance for being an oath-breaker—while she is in
mourning, then she will consider his suit of marriage. Each lady-in-waiting
exacts a similar promise from the king's lords. Although there will be no
weddings forthcoming, the ladies vow to return to Navarre the following
year to determine if their love is true.
The King of Navarre and his three lords, Berowne, Longaville,
and Dumaine, swear an oath to scholarship, which includes fasting and
avoiding contact with women for three years. They receive a letter from
Don Armado, a Spaniard visiting the King's court, telling them that he has
caught Costard, a fool, and Jaquenetta, a country wench, consorting in
the park. The King announces Costard's sentence, and he and the lords
go off to begin their oath. Don Armado confesses to Moth, his page, that
he has fallen in love with Jaquenetta. He writes her a letter that he asks
Costard to deliver.
Meanwhile, the Princess of France has arrived to visit the King.
Because of his oath, however, the King cannot receive the Princess and
her party at his court; he and his lords must visit them at their camp
outside the castle. The three lords fall in love with the three ladies, as
does the King with the Princess. Berowne gives Costard a letter to deliver
to Rosaline, but Costard accidentally switches it with the letter from Don
Armado to Jaquenetta. When he gives Berowne's letter to Jaquenetta,
she brings it to the learned Holofernes and Sir Nathaniel to read for her.
They tell her that the letter was meant for someone else and to deliver it
to the King.
Berowne watches the King from a hiding spot as he reads about
his love for the Princess. Longaville enters, and the King hides as well; he
and Berowne observe Longaville reading of his love for Maria. Dumaine
enters, Longaville hides, and all three see Dumaine reading an ode he
has written to Katherine. Longaville advances and tells Dumaine that he
is not alone in love. The King then advances and scolds the two men for
breaking their oath. Berowne advances and reveals that the King is in
love as well. Jaquenetta arrives and gives Berowne the letter, which he
rips up. However, Dumaine picks up a piece of the letter with Berowne's
name on it, and Berowne confesses that he is in love as well. The four
men decide to court their women.
The King and his lords arrive at the Princess's pavilion dressed
as Muscovites. The women heed Boyet's prior warnings and decide to
switch favors, so that the men will mistake them for each other. After the
men leave and reappear as themselves, the women reveal their prank.
They all watch a show of the Nine Worthies, performed by Don Armado,
Sir Nathaniel, and Holofernes. A messenger arrives to tell the Princess
that her father has died, and she prepares to return to France. The
women tell their suitors to seek them again in a year, and the play ends
with their departure.
*)adapted from ( and (http://www. spark
notes. com /shakespeare/labours/ summary. html
Appendix 6
A Note on Shakespeare’s Language*)
VOCABULARY. As the oxford Shakespeare Glossary shows, there
are some ten thousand words in the whole of the works attributed to
Shakespeare which require explanation for the general reader, either
because they are no longer in ordinary use or because they are used
by him in some way that is not how familiar. Among the former are
such word as ballow cudge, phill-horse, shaft-horse, and neaf fist,
which are now only provincial, and such others as benison blessing,
foison abundance, mow grimace, parlous dangerous, puissant
powerful, teen grief, which may be found still in literary dection, as well
as a considerable number that have been used, so far as we know, by
Shakespeare alone. With such as these we become acquainte by
reference to glossaries and notes. But it is possible to continue to read
Shakespeare without properly understanding himbecause we are
unaware of, and sometimes do not even suspect, differences in the
meaning of words that are in general used today
The following selection of such words will serve to indicate the
nature of the differences that may be looked for:
allow approve
argument proof, subject of
brave fine, splendid
churhman clergyman
close secret
complexion abit or constitution of
body or mind, look, aspect,
conceit idea, thought, invention
condition covenant, rank,
difference disagreement, dispute
evil disease
fashion sort
favour appearance, face
feature bodily form
gear affair, business
grudge complain
hint opportunity
hope expect, suppose
infer allege
liberal unrestrained, licentious
mere absolute, downright
merely entirely
miss do without
note sign, stigma, information
obsequious dutiful
owe own
painful laborious
passion painful disease, strong
peevish silly, perverse
present immediately
presently at once
prevent anticipate
quality rank, profession
rate estimation
respect consideration
Sad grave, serious
Sort rank, class, way, manner
Still always, continually
stomach inclination, angry or
proud temper
instance cause, evidence,
level aim
lewd bad, vile
suddent swift, violent
tall fine, valiant
type mark, badge
very true
Among words having a very wide range of meaning the following may
be noted:
 humour (1) moisture, (2) any of the four fluids of the human
body recognized by the old physiologist, (3) temperament, (4)
mood, temper, fancy, caprice, inclination;
 Nice (1) delicate, (2) shy, coy, (3) fastidious, (4) subtle,
minute, (5) trivial, (6) critical, precarious, (7) exact, precise;
 Quaint (1) skilled, clever, (2) pretty, dainty, (3) handsome,
elegant, (4) carefully elaborated;
 Sensible (1) sensitive, (2) of the senses, (3) capable of
emotion, (4) rational, (5) tangible, substantial, (6) full of good
 Wit (1) mental powers, mind, faculty of perception, as in the
five wits, (2) inventive power, (3) understanding, intelligence,
(4) wisdom, good sense, as in brevity is the soul of wit, (5)
lively fancy producing brilliant talk.
A second adjective dear grievous, severe, dire, (distinct from
dear beloved, precious) is seen in my dear offence, the dear exile.
Many adjectives and participial words show the application of a
suffix with a force different from that which is now usual:
Deceivable deceitful
Tuneable tuneful
Unmeritable undeserving
Cureless incurable
Grac’d gracious
Guiled treacherous
Disdain’d disdainful
Questionable inviting question
Careless uncared for
Unexpressive inexpressible
Plausive plausible
Unavoided inevitable
Beholding obliged, beholden
Timeless untimely, premature
Note also the double meaning, active and passive, of artificial (1)
constructive, creative, (2) produced by art.
Shakespeare uses a multitude of technical terms of the arts and
sciences; these are treated in their historical setting in Shakespeare’s
England (O.U.P); note specially the glossary of musical terms in vol. ii,
pp. 32 ff. Some general aspects of the vocabulary are dealt with in G.
S. Gordon’s Shakespeare’s English, society for Pure English, Tract
xxix (O.U.P).
PRONUNCIATION. In order to understand the scansion of the verse it
is necessary to bear in mind certain features of the pronunciation of the
time. Many words of French or Latin origin had been variously stressed
from early times, and deviation from present usage is to be seen, for
example, in Shakespeare’s adver’tizèd, aspect’, canon’izèd, chas’tise,
compact’ (noun), exile’, instinct’ (noun), obdu’rate, reven’ue,
sepul’chre, solem’nized, triumph’ing. The stressing of certain
adjectives and participles of two syllables is subject to the rule the
immediately before nouns one syllable, and before other nouns
stressed on the first syllable, but in other position on the second; thus:
all’ the com’plete ar’mour, ev’ery way com’plete’; the en’tire sum’, your’
entire’ affec’tion; the crown’ so foul’ misplaced’, the mis’placed John’.
In words in- ian, -ience, -ient, -ion, these ending may count as
two syllables; thus, Christian, patient may be 3 syllables, condition,
impatience 4, lamentation 5. Similarly marriage and soldier may be
three syllables. There is variation in such words as fire, hour, power,
prayer, which may count as either one or two syllables. Either may be
slurred into one syllable, and whether is often so reduced, the form
where frequently occurring in the old editions, continuing what was a
regular early English variant form. Hither, thither, whither, and having,
evil, devil, are treated in the same way. Statue occurs in several
passages in the old edition where three syllables are required; many
modern editions substitute statua, which was a common Tudor and
Stuart form.
NOUNS. The genitive singular ending s may be replaced by his, as the
count his galleys, Mars his armour. The inflexion is dropped before
shake, e.g. Venice gold, Rome gates, Tiber banks. One of the
adverbial uses of the genitive is preserved in come your ways. Notable
examples of the n- plural are shoon for shoes, and eyne (eyes), which
are used chiefly for rhyme. Aches is of two syllables, since the noun
ache was pronounced aitch, as distinct from the verb, which was
regularly spelt ake in the old editions. Names of measures and periods
of time are often uninflected, as twelve year, a thousand pound: cf.
sennight (=seven night) week.
ADJECTIVES. Adjectives are converted into nouns with greater
freedom than at present: fair is used for beauty as well as for lady, the
general for the public, the multitude, the subject for the people of a
state. Note the phrases: in few in few words, in short; by small and
small little by little; the most (=majority) of men. Enow represents the
old plural of enough, and is so used, always following its noun or
pronoun. Mo, moe (=more) is also plural: it represents an old
comparative adverb, which was used at first with a genitive, but
became in time an adjective like more. The plural of other is either
others or other (e.g. and then come in the other)
Peculiarities in the comparison of adjectives are: the use of suffixes
where we prefer more and most, as certainer, perfecter, violentest ; the
addition of –er to a comparative, as worser; the use of more and most
with comparatives and superlatives as more better, most best, most
dearest, more worthier, most worst, most unkindest. Note the old
comparative near, as in ne’er the near. An absolute superlative may be
strengthened by prefixing one, e.g. one the truest-mannered.
PRONOUNS. The distinction between the familiar or contemptuous
thou( thee, thy) and the respectful ye (you, your) is in general
preserved. The old weak form a of he occurs in there was a gaming.
The commonest genitive of it is his : the present day it’s and the
obsolete it (as in It has it head bit off by it young) are about equally
frequent in the old editions. Pronominal possessive forms are
sometimes used as adjectives, but only in company with other
possessives, as in his and mine lov’d darling. Note the position of the
possessives, in good my liege, sweet my coz.
There is much irregularity in the use of the cases of pronouns,
Thee is used for thou, as with intransitives imperatives, look thee,
stand thee close; also in I would not be thee, and the like. We find
also: between you and I; Is she as tall as me?; which, of he or
Adrian….?; Damn’d be him….. The function of the original nominative
ye and objective you are reserved in I do beseech do beseech ye, if
you be me hard….; us is usual for we in the interrogative Shall’s. There
is no consistency in the use of who and whom: a common confusion is
illustrated in whom they say is killed.
The relative pronouns are not discriminated according to
present practice, since which may refer to persons and who to things.
The which is very frequent; it may be used adjectivally, as in For the
which blessing I am at him upon my knees. The nominative relatives
(the subject of the clause) is often absent, interrogative, but is
frequently used as a relative=that…. Not; e.g. No man but prophesied
revenge for it; What canst thou say but will perplex them more?
Verbs show many old forms as well as variety of conjugation
which are no longer possible in ordinary language. Early strong forms
are retained in holp, holp’st, alongside helped, helped’st: spake and
spoke are both in use: old strong forms are replaced by weak in
becomed, shaked: the past tenses drunk and sprung are more
frequent than drank and sprang; the clipped broke, spoke occur beside
the original participal forms broken, spoken; catched and caught are
both found; many past tenses form are used for the participle as, eat,
holp, forsook, rode, shook, swam. Remarkable instances of the great
variety of usage may be seen in struck, strucken, stricken for the past
participle of strike, and in the conjugation write, past tense writ,
occasionally wrote, past participle written, writ, less frequently wrote.
Weak verbs of which the stem ends in d or t often have shortened
past participles, as betd, heat, wed, wet. Observe that graft and hoist
are rather participles of the older verbs graff and hoise than of graft
and hoist. Present tense form in s (including is) are not uncommonly
used with plural subjects, especially where the verb precedes the
subject; e.g. What cares these roarers for the name of king?: There is
no more such masters.
There are many survivals of impersonal uses, some of them in
disguise. The older forms of I were better, Thou’rt best were Me were
better. It would be better for me, Thee were best it would be best for
thee; but in You were better the case of the pronoun became
ambiguous, you was in time felt as a nominative, and other pronouns
fell into line. The history of the development of I am woe (in which woe
is felt as an adjective) from the original Me is woe is somewhat similar.
In Fair befall thee the verb is impersonal and fair and adverb.
The uses of the subjunctive are many and various. An
exceptional construction is seen in Live thou (=if thou live), I live. An
old use of the past subjunctive is exemplified in If you would put me to
verses, Kate, why, you undid (=would undo) me.
The infinitive of a verb of motion is often to be supplied in
thought with an auxiliary verb; e.g. I must to England; Shall we to this
ADVERBS. Adverbs, especially those of the one syllable, may have
the same form as their corresponding adjectives, as dear, full, fair,
near, true; such words as excellent, equal, instant, prodigal are also
used adverbially. When two adverbs are coupled together which would
both normally have the suffix –ly, one of them may lack it, as
in sprightfully and bold, so lamely and unfashionable. A rare formation
is chirurgeonly like a surgeon. Comparative forms with the suffix are
used more freely than at present; e.g. earthlier happy, wiselier.
The use of but in the sense of ‘only’ needs to be specially
noticed: but now just now, only this moment; similarly but while-are
only a short time ago, but late only lately. It is coupled redundantly with
only in He only lived but till he was a man.
Normally, only should stand immediately before the words it
modifies; but it is often loosely placed, as in He only loves the world for
him (i.e. only for him)
A negative adverbs (or conjunction) may be used with another
negative word, superfluously from our point of view ( the use was
originally emphatic; you know my father hath no child but I, nor none
is like to have. The negative may even be tripled: love no man in
good earnest; nor no further in sport neither. In the following a
redundant negative occurs in a dependent clause after a verb of
negative meaning: you may deny that you were not the cause.
PREPOSITIONS. Prepositions have many uses that differ from their
present ones; for example, for, of, and to have each some ten
meanings that are not current now. Of and with I are both used to
express the agent, as in seen of us, torn to pieces killed with a
thunderstroke. With abstract nouns, of forms equivalents of the
corresponding adjectives; e.g. of desperation desperate, of nature
natural. Both for and to may be used, though in different kinds of
context, = in the character of, as: e.g. turned out of all towns and cities
for a dangerous thing; I have a king here to my flatterer. A preposition
is used freely at the end of the sentence or clause, e.g. he I am before
= he in whose presence I am; sometimes it is redundant, as in the
scene wherein we play in ; or again, it may be dropped, as in I see
thou lovest me not with the full weight that I love thee (i.e.with).
At in at door, at gate, and the like, is descended from the earlier
atte (two syllables), which is for at the.
CONJUNCTIONS. The following should be noted: an or an if if; as as
if; for because; but if ... not, unless; nor... nor… neither... nor…. or...
or... either… or…; or ere before ever; so provided that; that (in much
wider use than at present) for the reason that, because, in order that,
so that; whiles while.
The full exposition of the language of Shakespeare requires a
book to itself, and such will be found in E.A. Abbott’s Shakespearian
Grammar and W. Franz’s Shakespeare- Grammatik. An illuminating
sketch is Henry Bradley’s essay ‘Shakespeare’s English’ in
Shakespeare’s England, vol. ii, pp. 539-74. Selected points are treated
with some fullness in Nine Plays of Shakespeare (O.U.P), pp. xixxxxvi.
*)this note is taken from book The New Clarendon Shakespeare ‘The Merchant of
Vinece (Great Britain - Oxford University Press, Amen House, 1956) edited by
Ronald F.W. Fletcher, M.A. The note is contributed by C.T. Onion (p. 179-186)
Appendix 7
Biography of Shakespeare
The English playwright, poet, and actor William Shakespeare
(1564-1616) is generally acknowledged to be the greatest of English
writers and one of the most extraordinary creators in human history.
The most crucial fact about William Shakespeare's career is that he
was a popular dramatist. Born 6 years after Queen Elizabeth I had
ascended the throne, contemporary with the high period of the English
Renaissance, Shakespeare had the good luck to find in the theater of
London a medium just coming into its own and an audience, drawn
from a wide range of social classes, eager to reward talents of the sort
he possessed. His entire life was committed to the public theater, and
he seems to have written nondramatic poetry only when enforced
closings of the theater made writing plays impractical. It is equally
remarkable that his days in the theater were almost exactly
contemporary with the theater's other outstanding achievements—the
work, for example, of Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, and John
Shakespeare was born on or just before April 23, 1564, in the
small but then important Warwickshire town of Stratford. His mother,
born Mary Arden, was the daughter of a landowner from a neighboring
village. His father, John, son of a farmer, was a glove maker and trader
in farm produce; he had achieved a position of some eminence in the
prosperous market town by the time of his son's birth, holding a number
of responsible positions in Stratford's government and serving as mayor
in 1569. By 1576, however, John Shakespeare had begun to encounter
the financial difficulties which were to plague him until his death in
Though no personal documents survive from Shakespeare's
school years, his literary work shows the mark of the excellent if
grueling education offered at the Stratford grammar school (some
reminiscences of Stratford school days may have lent amusing touches
to scenes in The Merry Wives of Windsor). Like other Elizabethan
schoolboys, Shakespeare studied Latin grammar during the early
years, then progressed to the study of logic, rhetoric, composition,
oration, versification, and the monuments of Roman literature. The work
was conducted in Latin and relied heavily on rote memorization and the
master's rod. A plausible tradition holds that William had to discontinue
his education when about 13 in order to help his father. At 18 he
married Ann Hathaway, a Stratford girl. They had three children
(Susanna, 1583-1649; Hamnet, 1585-1596; and his twin, Judith, 15851662) and who was to survive him by 7 years. Shakespeare remained
actively involved in Stratford affairs throughout his life, even when living
in London, and retired there at the end of his career.
The years between 1585 and 1592, having left no evidence as to
Shakespeare's activities, have been the focus of considerable
speculation; among other things, conjecture would have him a traveling
actor or a country schoolmaster. The earliest surviving notice of his
career in London is a jealous attack on the "upstart crow" by Robert
Greene, a playwright, professional man of letters, and profligate whose
career was at an end in 1592 though he was only 6 years older than
Shakespeare. Greene's outcry testifies, both in its passion and in the
work it implies Shakespeare had been doing for some time, that the
young poet had already established himself in the capital. So does the
quality of Shakespeare's first plays: it is hard to believe that even
Shakespeare could have shown such mastery without several years of
Early Career
Shakespeare's first extant play is probably The Comedy of Errors
(1590; like most dates for the plays, this is conjectural and may be a
year or two off), a brilliant and intricate farce involving two sets of
identical twins and based on two already-complicated comedies by the
Roman Plautus. Though less fully achieved, his next comedy, The Two
Gentlemen of Verona (1591), is more prophetic of Shakespeare's later
comedy, for its plot depends on such devices as a faithful girl who
educates her fickle lover, romantic woods, a girl dressed as a boy,
sudden reformations, music, and happy marriages at the end. The last
of the first comedies, Love's Labour's Lost (1593), is romantic again,
dealing with the attempt of three young men to withdraw from the world
and women for 3 years to study in their king's "little Academe," and their
quick surrender to a group of young ladies who come to lodge nearby. If
the first of the comedies is most notable for its plotting and the second
for its romantic elements, the third is distinguished by its dazzling
language and its gallery of comic types. Already Shakespeare had
learned to fuse conventional characters with convincing representations
of the human life he knew.
Though little read and performed now, Shakespeare's first plays
in the popular "chronicle," or history, genre are equally ambitious and
impressive. Dealing with the tumultuous events of English history
between the death of Henry V in 1422 and the accession of Henry VII in
1485 (which began the period of Tudor stability maintained by
Shakespeare's own queen), the three "parts" of Henry VI (1592) and
Richard III (1594) are no tentative experiments in the form: rather they
constitute a gigantic tetralogy, in which each part is a superb play
individually and an integral part of an epic sequence. Nothing so
ambitious had ever been attempted in England in a form hitherto
marked by slapdash formlessness.
Shakespeare's first tragedy, Titus Andronicus (1593), reveals similar
ambition. Though its chamber of horrors— including mutilations and
ingenious murders—strikes the modern reader as belonging to a
theatrical tradition no longer viable, the play is in fact a brilliant and
successful attempt to outdo the efforts of Shakespeare's predecessors
in the lurid tradition of the revenge play.
When the theaters were closed because of plague during much
of 1593-1594, Shakespeare looked to nondramatic poetry for his
support and wrote two narrative masterpieces, the seriocomic Venus
and Adonis and the tragic Rape of Lucrece, for a wealthy patron, the
Earl of Southampton. Both poems carry the sophisticated techniques of
Elizabethan narrative verse to their highest point, drawing on the
resources of Renaissance mythological and symbolic traditions.
Shakespeare's most famous poems, probably composed in this
period but not published until 1609, and then not by the author, are the
154 sonnets, the supreme English examples of the form. Writing at the
end of a brief, frenzied vogue for sequences of sonnets, Shakespeare
found in the conventional 14-line lyric with its fixed rhyme scheme a
vehicle for inexhaustible technical innovations—for Shakespeare even
more than for other poets, the restrictive nature of the sonnet generates
a paradoxical freedom of invention that is the life of the form—and for
the expression of emotions and ideas ranging from the frivolous to the
tragic. Though often suggestive of autobiographical revelation, the
sonnets cannot be proved to be any the less fictions than the plays. The
identity of their dedicatee, "Mr. W. H.," remains a mystery, as does the
question of whether there were real-life counterparts to the famous
"dark lady" and the unfaithful friend who are the subject of a number of
the poems. But the chief value of these poems is intrinsic: the sonnets
alone would have established Shakespeare's preeminence among
English poets.
Lord Chamberlain's Men
By 1594 Shakespeare was fully engaged in his career. In that
year he became principal writer for the successful Lord Chamberlain's
Men—one of the two leading companies of actors; a regular actor in the
company; and a "sharer," or partner, in the group of artist-managers
who ran the entire operation and were in 1599 to have the Globe
Theater built on the south bank of the Thames. The company
performed regularly in unroofed but elaborate theaters. Required by law
to be set outside the city limits, these theaters were the pride of
London, among the first places shown to visiting foreigners, and seated
up to 3,000 people. The actors played on a huge platform stage
equipped with additional playing levels and surrounded on three sides
by the audience; the absence of scenery made possible a flow of
scenes comparable to that of the movies, and music, costumes, and
ingenious stage machinery created successful illusions under the
afternoon sun.
For this company Shakespeare produced a steady outpouring of
plays. The comedies include The Taming of the Shrew (1594),
fascinating in light of the first comedies since it combines with an
Italian-style plot, in which all the action occurs in one day, a more
characteristically English and Shakespearean plot, the taming of Kate,
in which much more time passes; A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595),
in which "rude mechanicals," artisans without imagination, become
entangled with fairies and magic potions in the moonlit woods to which
young lovers have fled from a tyrannical adult society; The Merchant of
Venice (1596), which contributed Shylock and Portia to the English
literary tradition; Much Ado about Nothing (1598), with a melodramatic
main plot whose heroine is maligned and almost driven to death by a
conniving villain and a comic subplot whose Beatrice and Benedick
remain the archetypical sparring lovers; The Merry Wives of Windsor
(1599), held by tradition to have been written in response to the
Queen's request that Shakespeare write another play about Falstaff
(who had appeared in Henry IV), this time in love; and in 1600 the
pastoral As You Like It, a mature return to the woods and conventions
of The Two Gentlemen of Verona and A Midsummer Night's Dream,
and Twelfth Night, perhaps the most perfect of the comedies, a
romance of identical twins separated at sea, young love, and the antics
of Malvolio and Sir Toby Belch.
Shakespeare's only tragedies of the period are among his most
familiar plays: Romeo and Juliet (1596), Julius Caesar (1599), and
Hamlet (1601). Different from one another as they are, these three
plays share some notable features: the setting of intense personal
tragedy in a large world vividly populated by what seems like the whole
range of humanity; a refusal, shared by most of Shakespeare's
contemporaries in the theater, to separate comic situations and
techniques from tragic; the constant presence of politics; and—a
personal rather than a conventional phenomenon—a tragic structure in
which what is best in the protagonist is what does him in when he finds
himself in conflict with the world.
Continuing his interest in the chronicle, Shakespeare wrote King
John (1596), despite its one strong character a relatively weak play;
and the second and greater tetralogy, ranging from Richard II (1595), in
which the forceful Bolingbroke, with an ambiguous justice on his side,
deposes the weak but poetic king, through the two parts of Henry IV
(1597), in which the wonderfully amoral, fat knight Falstaff accompanies
Prince Hal, Bolingbroke's son, to Henry V (1599), in which Hal, become
king, leads a newly unified England, its civil wars temporarily at an end
but sadly deprived of Falstaff and the dissident lowlife who provided so
much joy in the earlier plays, to triumph over France. More impressively
than the first tetralogy, the second turns history into art. Spanning the
poles of comedy and tragedy, alive with a magnificent variety of
unforgettable characters, linked to one another as one great play while
each is a complete and independent success in its own right—the four
plays pose disturbing and unanswerable questions about politics,
making one ponder the frequent difference between the man capable of
ruling and the man worthy of doing so, the meaning of legitimacy in
office, the value of order and stability as against the value of
revolutionary change, and the relation of private to public life. The plays
are exuberant works of art, but they are not optimistic about man as a
political animal, and their unblinkered recognition of the dynamics of
history has made them increasingly popular and relevant in our own
tormented era.
Three plays of the end of Elizabeth's reign are often grouped as
Shakespeare's "problem plays," though no definition of that term is able
successfully to differentiate them as an exclusive group. All's Well That
Ends Well (1602) is a romantic comedy with qualities that seem bitter to
many critics; like other plays of the period, by Shakespeare and by his
contemporaries, it presents sexual relations between men and women
in a harsh light. Troilus and Cressida (1602), hardest of the plays to
classify generically, is a brilliant, sardonic, and disillusioned piece on
the Trojan War, unusually philosophical in its language and reminiscent
in some ways of Hamlet. The tragicomic Measure for Measure (1604)
focuses more on sexual problems than any other play in the canon;
Angelo, the puritanical and repressed man of ice who succumbs to
violent sexual urges the moment he is put in temporary authority over
Vienna during the duke's absence, and Isabella, the victim of his lust,
are two of the most interesting characters in Shakespeare, and the
bawdy city in which the action occurs suggests a London on which a
new mood of modern urban hopelessness is settling.
King's Men
Promptly upon his accession in 1603, King James I, more
ardently attracted to theatrical art than his predecessor, bestowed his
patronage upon the Lord Chamberlain's Men, so that the flag of the
King's Men now flew over the Globe. During his last decade in the
theater Shakespeare was to write fewer but perhaps even finer plays.
Almost all the greatest tragedies belong to this period. Though they
share the qualities of the earlier tragedies, taken as a group they
manifest new tendencies. The heroes are dominated by passions that
make their moral status increasingly ambiguous, their freedom
increasingly circumscribed; similarly the society, even the cosmos,
against which they strive suggests less than ever that all can ever be
right in the world. As before, what destroys the hero is what is best
about him, yet the best in Macbeth or Othello cannot so simply be
commended as Romeo's impetuous ardor or Brutus's political idealism
(fatuous though it is). The late tragedies are each in its own way
dramas of alienation, and their focus, like that of the histories, continues
to be felt as intensely relevant to the concerns of modern men.
Othello (1604) is concerned, like other plays of the period, with sexual
impurity, with the difference that that impurity is the fantasy of the
protagonist about his faithful wife. Iago, the villain who drives Othello to
doubt and murder, is the culmination of two distinct traditions, the
"Machiavellian" conniver who uses deceit in order to subvert the order
of the polity, and the Vice, a schizophrenically tragicomic devil figure
from the morality plays going out of fashion as Shakespeare grew up.
King Lear (1605), to many Shakespeare's masterpiece, is an agonizing
tragic version of a comic play (itself based on mythical early English
history), in which an aged king who foolishly deprives his only loving
daughter of her heritage in order to leave all to her hypocritical and
vicious sisters is hounded to death by a malevolent alliance which at
times seems to include nature itself. Transformed from its fairy-tale-like
origins, the play involves its characters and audience alike in
metaphysical questions that are felt rather than thought.
Macbeth (1606), similarly based on English chronicle material,
concentrates on the problems of evil and freedom, convincingly mingles
the supernatural with a representation of history, and makes a
paradoxically sympathetic hero of a murderer who sins against family
and state—a man in some respects worse than the villain of Hamlet.
Dramatizing stories from Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Antony and
Cleopatra and Coriolanus (both written in 1607-1608) embody
Shakespeare's bitterest images of political life, the former by setting
against the call to Roman duty the temptation to liberating sexual
passion, the latter by pitting a protagonist who cannot live with
hypocrisy against a society built on it. Both of these tragedies present
ancient history with a vividness that makes it seem contemporary,
though the sensuousness of Antony and Cleopatra, the richness of its
detail, the ebullience of its language, and the seductive character of its
heroine have made it far more popular than the harsh and austere
Coriolanus. One more tragedy, Timon of Athens, similarly based on
Plutarch, was written during this period, though its date is obscure.
Despite its abundant brilliance, few find it a fully satisfactory play, and
some critics have speculated that what we have may be an incomplete
draft. The handful of tragedies that Shakespeare wrote between 1604
and 1608 comprises an astonishing series of worlds different from one
another, created of language that exceeds anything Shakespeare had
done before, some of the most complex and vivid characters in all the
plays, and a variety of new structural techniques.
A final group of plays takes a turn in a new direction. Commonly
called the "romances," Pericles (1607), Cymbeline (1609), The Winter's
Tale (1611), and The Tempest (1611) share their conventions with the
tragicomedy that had been growing popular since the early years of the
century. Particularly they resemble in some respects plays written by
Beaumont and Fletcher for the private theatrical company whose
operation the King's Men took over in 1608. While such work in the
hands of others, however, tended to reflect the socially and
intellectually narrow interests of an elite audience, Shakespeare turned
the fashionable mode into a new kind of personal art form. Though less
searing than the great tragedies, these plays have a unique power to
move and are in the realm of the highest art. Pericles and Cymbeline
seem somewhat tentative and experimental, though both are superb
plays. The Winter's Tale, however, is one of Shakespeare's best plays.
Like a rewriting of Othello in its first acts, it turns miraculously into
pastoral comedy in its last. The Tempest is the most popular and
perhaps the finest of the group. Prospero, shipwrecked on an island
and dominating it with magic which he renounces at the end, may well
be intended as an image of Shakespeare himself; in any event, the play
is like a retrospective glance over the plays of the 2 previous decades.
After the composition of The Tempest, which many regard as an
explicit farewell to art, Shakespeare retired to Stratford, returning to
London to compose Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen in 1613;
neither of these plays seems to have fired his imagination. In 1616, at
the age of 52, he was dead. His reputation grew quickly, and his work
has continued to seem to each generation like its own most precious
discovery. His value to his own age is suggested by the fact that two
fellow actors performed the virtually unprecedented act in 1623 of
gathering his plays together and publishing them in the Folio edition.
Without their efforts, since Shakespeare was apparently not interested
in publication, many of the plays would not have survived.
Further Reading on William Shakespeare
Alfred Harbage, ed., The Complete Pelican Shakespeare (1969), is a
sound one-volume text with useful introductions and bibliographies. For
editions of individual plays the New Arden Shakespeare, in progress, is
the best series. The authoritative source for biographical information is
Sir Edmund K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and
Problems (2 vols., 1930). Reliable briefer accounts are Marchette G.
Chute's highly readable Shakespeare of London (1949) and Gerald E.
Bentley, Shakespeare: A Biographical Handbook (1961).
The body of Shakespeare criticism is so large that selection must be
arbitrary. Augustus Ralli, A History of Shakespeare Criticism (2 vols.,
1932), is a guide through the thickets of the past. Ronald Berman, A
Reader's Guide to Shakespeare's Plays (1965), provides helpfully
annotated bibliographies. Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Writings on
Shakespeare, edited by Terence Hawkes (1959), offers invaluable and
influential criticism by a great romantic poet, and A. C. Bradley,
Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear,
Macbeth (1904), remains one of the indispensable books. Twentiethcentury criticism can be sampled in Leonard F. Dean, Shakespeare:
Modern Essays in Criticism (1957; rev. ed. 1967), and Norman Rabkin,
Approaches to Shakespeare (1964). Other noteworthy studies include
G. Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire: Interpretations of Shakespeare's
Tragedy (1930; 5th rev. ed. 1957); Derek A. Traversi, An Approach to
Shakespeare (1938; rev. ed., 2 vols., 1968); Mark Van Doren,
Shakespeare (1939); Harley Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare
(1946-1947), edited by M. St. Clare Byrne (4 vols., 1954); John Russell
Brown, Shakespeare and His Comedies (1957; 2d ed. 1962); C. L.
Barber, Shakespeare's Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and
Its Relation to Social Custom (1959); L.C. Knights, Some
Shakespearean Themes (1959); Norman Rabkin, Shakespeare and the
Common Understanding (1967); and Stephen Booth, An Essay on
Shakespeare's Sonnets (1969).
Studies of the theaters are in C. Walter Hodges, The Globe Restored: A
Study of the Elizabethan Theatre (1953), and A.M. Nagler,
Shakespeare's Stage (1958); and of the staging, in Bernard
Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599-1609 (1962). The
standard account of the audience is Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare's
Audience (1941). The best account of early Renaissance drama is in
Frank P. Wilson and Bonamy Dobrée, eds., Oxford History of English
Literature, vol. 4 (1969). Oscar J. Campbell and Edward G. Quinn, eds.,
The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare (1966), is a compendious
*I have no an authority to claim that this material is my own words rather than it is adapted
from many sources: 1), retrived
July 24, 2012, 2) An Outline History of English Literature, 1960 by William Henry Hudson,
London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd., and 3) An Introduction to the Study of Literature, 1961 by
William Henry Hudson, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.
Appendix 8
Curriculum Vitae of the Researcher
A. Identitas Diri
Tempat Tanggal lahir
Alamat email/blog
Nama Pena
Nama istri
Fathu Rahman
Watampone, 3 Oktober 1960
PNS - Dosen Fakultas Sastra / FIB Universitas
Pembina /IVC (Lektor Kepala)
Kompleks Perdos Unhas Tamalanrea Blok AG17
Tamalanrea – Makassar 90245
: [email protected]
Fatura Arrahman (dalam penerbitan puisi dan
Ir. Hj. Kifaya Ariana F. Rahman, MT (Dosen
Politeknik Negeri Ujung Pandang – Makassar)
1. Fakhrian Fathu Rahman (Karyawan PT.
Pertamina (Persero) , Unit III Refineri
2. Fakhreny Fathu Rahman (Karyawan PT Haji
Kalla Toyota (Cokroaminoto), Makassar
3. Fakhriawan Fathu Rahman (Mahasiswa Fak.
Sastra Unhas)
4. Fakhrina Fathu Rahman (SMU 5 Makassar)
5. Fakhrury Fathu Rahman (SMU 5 Makassar)
6. Fakhradya Fathu Rahman (SMP 12
B. Latar Belakang Pendidikan
SDN Neg. 7 Watampone (1972)
Sekolah Menengah Pertama, Bone (1975)
Sekolah Madrasah (PGAN) Bone 1979
Fakultas Sastra Unhas (1985)
Diploma Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris RELC- Seameo Singapore (1990)
Certificate On Writing, Griffith University – Brisbane Australia. 1995
7. Program S2 ELS Unhas (1999)
8. Program S3 PPS Unhas (2014)
C. Riwayat Pekerjaan/Jabatan
1. Sekretaris Lembaga Bahasa UMI (1985-1989)
2. Visiting Scholar (Dosen Tamu Pengajaran Bahasa dan Kebudayaan
Indonesia), Faculty of Asian Studies, Griffith University Australia. 19951996
3. Sekretaris Prog D3 Bahasa dan Pariwisata FS-Unhas (2000-2002)
4. Pembantu Dekan III Fakultas Sastra (2002-2006)
5. Ketua Simpul Pemantau Pemilu, Forum Rektor Indonesia untuk
Kabupaten Bone dan Sinjai (2004-2005)
6. Direktur Politeknik Internasional Makassar (2006-2009)
7. Sekretaris Senat Fakultas Sastra (2013-2014)
8. Tim Komisi Disiplin (Komdis) Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, (2012 –
9. Pengelola Jurnal Lensa Budaya FIB Unhas (2012 – sekarang).
D. Pembicara pada Seminar/Lokakarya/Simposium/Konferensi
1. Transformasi Karya: Dari Puisi ke Cerpen hingga ke Muzikal Drama
(Studi Kasus Uda dan Dara karya Usman Awang). Malaysia: Universiti
Malaya. (2011)
2. Bahasa Melayu Menuju Bahasa Internasional: Suatu Gagasan Awal,
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Brunei Darussalam, 2011
3. Menggeledah Peran Sastra Dalam Membangun Karakter Bangsa
Makalah pada Seminar Internasional di Unhas, tahun 2012.
4. "Kesusastraan Indonesia dan Malaysia: Adakah Fotret Budaya
Melayu?" dimuat dalam Issues and Challenges In Malay-Indonesian
Studies (2012 DMIT International Conference, HUFS, Korea.
E. Karya Penelitian
1. The Moral Aspect in Some T.S. Eliot’s Poems. (Tesis S1) Makassar:
Fakultas Sastra Universitas Hasanuddin (1985)
2. Vernaculars: Local Differences within the Languages, 1990
3. The Problem of Teaching Listening Comprehension, LPPM Universitas
Hasanuddin 1993
4. Listening and Note-Taking, LPPM Universitas Hasanuddin 1994.
5. The Teaching of Indonesian in Australia, 1997
5. Dialogue Responses Analysis in Synge’s Riders to the Sea (A Stylistic
Approach), Magister Thesis, 1999
6. Survei Penutur Bahasa Daerah di Kota Makassar, 2006
7. The Young Dead Soldiers & Krawang Bekasi dalam Dimensi Sastra
Bandingan (Studi Kasus Intertext). Makassar: Lembaga Penelitian
Universitas Hasanuddin (2010)
8. Anggota peneliti "Kajian Terhadap Upaya Pembukaan Konsentrasi
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris FIB Unhas (2012).
9. Proceeding Editor, Kebahasaan, Sastra, dan Pendidikan - Seminar
Internasional Serumpun Melayu Unhas-UKM 2011
F. Pengalaman Organisasi
Pengurus KNPI Makassar (1996-2001)
Ketua Pemuda Kiara Makassar (1999-2009)
Ketua Simpul Daerah Forum Rektor Indonesia (2003-2004)
Anggota Tim Penyusun Pola Pembinaan Kemahasiswaan Unhas
tahun 2004
Ketua Bidang Pengembangan Organisasi FK-KBIH Sulsel (20032008),
Anggota Flipmas Mammiri Sulsel (2011-2015)
Pengurus Bidang Kerjasama Luar Negeri ICMI Sulsel 2011-2015)
Ketua Pembelajar Bahasa Mandarin Non Penutur "Hanyu Julepu"
Unhas (2012-2017)
G. Pelatihan Sebagai Peserta
1. Lokakarya Pengajaran Sastra Bandingan (Bogor 1994) Peserta
Pelatihan Survei Pemilu & QuickCount Forek Bandung (2003)
2. Pelatihan Oppek Kemahasiswaan - Dikti, Bogor (2004)
3. Pelatihan Untuk Pengajaran SCL-Unhas (2008)
4. Peserta Pelatihan Pengajaran Berbasis WEB (2010)
5. Pelatihan Penulisan Proposal Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat oleh
LP2M-Flipmas (Makassar, 2011)
6. Dialog Kebudayaan oleh BPKKI (Makassar, 2011)
7. Serasehan Nasional Kebudayaan Tionghoa - Indonesia (Klengteng
Xian Ma - Makassar 21-22 Januari 2012).
8. Peserta Workshop/Bintek Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HaKi) yang
diselenggarakan oleh LIPI kerjasama Balitbangda Sulsel, 2-4 Februari
2012 di Makassar
9. Peserta pada Seminar Penguatan Ketahanan Budaya Lokal (Dinas
Kebudayaan dan Kepariwisataan Pemprov Sulsel, 11 April di
Makassar. Peserta Seminar Lagaligo sebagai warisan budaya dunia
10. Peserta Seminar Internasional, Enpowering Local Cultures in response
to UNESCO seven dimension indicator suite, Clarion Hotel Makassar
11. Peserta International Seminar on Pacific Culture and Tradition, 4
Desember 2012 di Manado atas undangan Kemendikbud Jakarta.
12. Peserta Seminar Finalisasi Pendampingan Pendirian ISBI (Institut Seni
dan Budaya Indonesia) Sulawesi Selatan, 11-12 Desember 2012.
13. Peserta Training Dosen Enterpreneurship conducted by Humber
Institute - Canada and SEDS (Sulawesi Economy Development
Strategy) 7 - 22 Oktober di Makassar.
14. Steering Commeete Roadmap Penelitian untuk Jurusan Sastra Inggris
FIB Unhas 29 - 30 Oktober 2013,
H. Kegiatan Sebagai Pembina Kemahasiswaan
1. Tutor pada Pelatihan Penulisan Kreatif Mahasiswa, tahun 2002.
2. Ketua Pengarah LDKM (Latihan Dasar Kepemimpinan Mahasiswa)
tahun 2003
3. Tim Penilai Lomba Karya Tulis Mahasiswa se Sulsel tahun 2003
4. Tim Penilai Mahasiswa Teladan Unhas tahun 2004
5. Pembimbing Tim Puisi Unhas Peksiminas di Solo tahun 2004
6. Dosen Pembimbing PKM-Seni – Gorontalo 2005
7. Dewan Juri Lomba Puisi dan Pantun se Unhas tahun 2010.
8. Tim Penilai Mahasiswa Berprestasi pada FIB Unhas (2012).
9. Pemateri P2MB Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Unhas 2012.
10. Ketua Tim Juri Lomba Pantun Pepatah - Unhas; Komunitas UKM
Pantun 2012.
11. Panitia Workshop on English Debate - Unhas 2012.
12. Pembimbing PKM Pengabdian Masyarakat 2013.
13. Tim Penilai Mahasiswa Berprestasi FIB-Unhas tahun 2014
I. Kegiatan Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat
1. Penerjemah Penelitian Antropologi Ragawi, Kyoto University Jepang
untuk lokasi penelitian Sulselra (1987-1988)
2. Peningkatan Kualitas Ukiran Toraja (Toraja 1993)
3. Pembinaan Bahasa Inggris Bagi Sopir Taksi Bandara (Makassar 1994)
4. Tim Pembina dan Pemberantasan Buta Aksara Gembel Makassar
5. Pembimbing Manasik Haji KBIH Al Mabrur Unhas (2002-2008)
6. Tutor Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Berbasis Budaya (Bone, 2003)
7. Sosialisasi Pencontrengan Pemilu oleh CDI (Sidrap, 2008)
8. Anggota Pendampingan Desa Mandiri Pallawa Kab. Bone Kerjasama
PLN (Bone 2011)
9. Penyuluhan Bahasa pada SMU Neg 3 Takalar (2011)
10. Penyuluhan Bahasa dan Sosialisasi FIB (Maros, 2012)
J. Publikasi Ilmiah
1. Sastra Anak di Persimpangan Jalan, Lensa Budaya Fakultas Ilmu
Budaya Unhas, 2010.
2. Pelacakan Aspek Budaya melalui Studi Ikonitas dalam Karya Sastra
(published in Prosiding Seminar Antarbangsa ke-2 Arkeologi, Sejarah
dan Budaya di Alam Melayu). Malaysia: Institut Alam dan Tamadun
Melayu (ATMA) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2012.
3. Disela Reruntuhan Langit (Kumpulan Puisi) diterbitkan oleh Celebes
Development Institute, Makassar 2012
4. Bahasa Melayu Menuju Bahasa Internasional: Suatu Gagasan Awal,
seminar proceeding Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Brunei Darussalam,
5. Menggeledah Peran Sastra Dalam Membangun Karakter Bangsa
Makalah pada Seminar Internasional di Unhas, tahun 2012.
6. "Kesusastraan Indonesia dan Malaysia: Adakah Fotret Budaya
Melayu?" dimuat dalam Issues and Challenges In Malay-Indonesian
Studies (2012 DMIT International Conference, HUFS, Korea.
7. Kebahasaan, Sastra, dan Pendidikan. Prosiding Seminar Internasional
Serumpun Melayu (Editor) FIB-Unhas, 2011. ISSN 978-602-99268-2-8
8. The Iconicity of Peirce in Shakespeare’s Plays (A case study of King
Richard II, A Midsumer Night’s Dream and Romeo & Juliet), diterbitkan
pada International Journal of Enhanced Research in Educational
Development, ISSN No 2320-808, Impact Factor: 1. 125.
9. Sastra Tragedi, Darah & Airmata: Kajian Sastra Bandingan, Masagena
Press - Makassar (dalam proses penerbitan)