THE LANGUAGE OF SHAKESPEARE

The most striking feature of Shakespeare is his command of language. It is all the more astounding when one not only considers Shakespeare's sparse formal education but the curriculum of the day. There were no dictionaries; the first such lexical work for speakers of English was compiled by schoolmaster Robert Cawdrey as A Table Alphabeticall in 1604. Although certain grammatical treatises were published in Shakespeare's day, organized grammar texts would not appear until the 1700s. Shakespeare as a youth would have no more systematically studied his own language than any educated man of the period. Despite this, Shakespeare is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with the introduction of nearly 3,000 words into the language. His vocabulary, as culled from his works, numbers upward of 17,000 words (quadruple that of an average, well-educated conversationalist in the language). In the words of Louis Marder, "Shakespeare was so facile in employing words that he was able to use over 7,000 of themmore than occur in the whole King James version of the Bibleonly once and never again." Shakespeare's English, in spite of the calamitous cries of high school students everywhere, is only one linguistic generation removed from that which we speak today. Although the Elizabethan dialect differs slightly from Modern English, the principles are generally the same. There are some (present day) anomalies with prepositional usage and verb agreement, and certainly a number of Shakespeare's words have shifted meanings or dropped, with age, from the present vocabulary. Word order, as the language shifted from Middle to Early Modern English, was still a bit more flexible, and Shakespeare wrote dramatic poetry, not standard prose, which gave some greater license in expression. However, Elizabethan remains a sibling of our own tongue, and hence, accessible. This facility with language, and the art with which he employed its usage, is why Shakespeare is as relevant today as he was in his own time.

SHAKESPEARE'S GRAMMAR
Introduction
In the England of Shakespeare's time, English was a lot more flexible as a language. In addition, Shakespeare was writing as a dramatic poet and playwright, not as a scholar or historian. Combine the flux of early modern English with Shakespeare's artistic license (and don't forget to throw in a lot of words that have either shifted meaning or disappeared from the lexicon entirely), and there are some subtle difficulties in interpreting Shakespeare's meaning some 400 years after the fact. As with most popular playwrights of any era, Shakespeare uses language with facility and power, but with a colloquial freedom as well. That having been said, there are a number of ways to unlock Shakespeare's meaning based on habit and context. The highlightsbased on importance and frequencyare presented below. Original material copyright 2000 the Shakespeare Resource Center No reproduction without permission of the editor.

Syntax
The most common simple sentence in modern English follows a familiar pattern: Subject (S), Verb (V), Object (O). To illustrate this, we'll devise a subject (John), a verb (caught), and an object (the ball). Thus, we have an easily understood sentence, "John caught the ball." This is as perfectly an understood sentence in modern English as it was in Shakespeare's day. However, Shakespeare was much more at liberty to switch these three basic componentsand did, quite frequently. Shakespeare used a great deal of SOV inversion, which renders the sentence as "John the ball caught." This order is commonly found in Germanic languages (moreso in subordinate clauses), from which English derives much of its syntactical foundation.1 Another reason for Shakespeare's utilization of this order may be more practical. The romance languages of Italian and French introduced rhymed verse; Anglo-Saxon poetry was based on rhythm, metrical stresses, and alliteration within lines rather than rhymed couplets. With the introduction of rhymed poetic forms into English literature (and, since the Norman invasion, an injection of French to boot), there was a

subsequent shift in English poetry. To quote John Porter Houston, "Verbs in Old French and Italian make handy rimes, and they make even better ones in English because so many English verbs are monosyllabic. The verse line or couplet containing a subject near the beginning and a verb at the end is a natural development."2 Of course, Shakespeare wrote a great deal of work in blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter); when he wasn't rhyming, what was he thinking? Frankly, Elizabethans allowed for a lot more leeway in word order, and Shakespeare not only realized that, he took advantage of it. By utilizing inverted word orders, Shakespeare could effectively place the metrical stress wherever he needed it mostand English is heavily dependent on vocal inflection, which is not so easily translated into writing, to suggest emphasis and meaning. In his usage of order inversion, however, Shakespeare could compensate for this literary shortcoming. Shakespeare also throws in many examples of OSV construction ("The ball John caught."). Shakespeare seems to use this colloquially in many places as a transitory device, bridging two sentences, to provide continuity. Shakespeare (and many other writers) may also have used this as a device to shift end emphasis to the verb of a clause. Also, another prevalent usage of inversion was the VS order shift ("caught John" instead of "John caught"), which seems primarily a stylistic choice that further belies the Germanic root of modern English. In the end, Houston points to "the effort to make language more memorable by deviation from spoken habits."3 This is the essence of poetry: a heightening of language (even colloquial) above that of prose, a heightening that produces an idealized, imaginative conception of the subject.
1

There is no argument that English contains less than a fair share of French and Latinate words in its vocabulary; of course it does, which one would expect given the 1066 invasion of William the Conqueror (from Normandy, in France). But, as a linguistics professor once put it, "Think of the English language like a house: the decor is French, but the foundation and frame is Germanic." Fortunately, we decided to drop a couple of pronoun cases and the gender-specific articles by the time we get to modern English. 2 John Porter Houston, Shakespearean Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax (LSU Press, Baton Rouge, 1988), 2 3 Ibid, 20. The fine line of dramatic poetry is that ability to deviate from spoken habits enough to make it memorable, yet still keep the language within the constraints imposed by story, plot, and character. A play, even done in verse, is a different animal from the art of poetry.

Rhetorical Devices
Intertwined with syntax, rhetoric exerts another powerful influence on Elizabethan writing. Rhetoric in its original sense means "the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively." While I won't be getting into some of the more obscure terms (is there anyone who isn't frightened by a mouthful of syllables like "paraprosdokian"?), a healthy understanding of poetry's debt to rhetoric is in order. Below is a table of some of the more common devices employed for emphasis in Shakespeare:
alliteration repetition of the same initial consonant sound throughout a line of verse "When to the sessions of sweet silent thought...." (Sonnet XXX) the repetition of a word that ends one clause at the beginning of the next "My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, And every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a villain." 1 (Richard III, V, iii) repetition of a word or phrase as the beginning of successive clauses "Mad world! Mad kings! Mad composition!" (King John, II, i) substitution of one part of speech for another "I'll unhair thy head." (Antony and Cleoptra, II, v) juxtaposition, or contrast of ideas or words in a balanced or parallel construction "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more." (Julius Caesar, III, ii)

anadiplosis

anaphora

anthimeria

antithesis

assonance

repetition or similarity of the same internal vowel sound in words of close proximity "Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks." ( Romeo and Juliet, V, iii) omission of conjunctions between coordinate phrases, clauses, or words "Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, Shrunk to this little measure?" (Julius Caesar, III, i) two corresponding pairs arranged in a parallel inverse order "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" (Macbeth, I, i) repetition broken up by one or more intervening words "Put out the light, and then put out the light." (Othello, V, ii) omission of one or more words, which are assumed by the listener or reader "And he to England shall along with you." (Hamlet, III, iii) repetition at the end of a clause of the word that occurred at the beginning of the clause "Blood hath bought blood, and blows have answer'd blows." ( King John, II, i) frequent repetition of a phrase or question; dwelling on a point "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." ( Julius Caesar, III,ii) repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses 2 "I'll have my bond! Speak not against my bond! I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond." ( Merchant of Venice, III, iii) altering word order, or separation of words that belong together, for emphasis "Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." ( Measure for Measure, II, i) a confused use of words in which an appropriate word is replaced by one with similar sound but (often ludicrously) inappropriate meaning "I do lean upon justice, sir, and do bring in here before your good honor two notorious benefactors." "Are they not malefactors?" (Measure for Measure, II, i) implied comparison between two unlike things achieved through the figurative use of words "Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this son of York." ( Richard III, I, i) substitution of some attributive or suggestive word for what is meant (e.g., "crown" for royalty) "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." ( Julius Caesar, III, ii) use of words to imitate natural sounds "There be moe wasps that buzz about his nose." (Henry VIII, III, ii) emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it "Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar lov'd you." (Julius Caesar, III, ii) similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words, phrases, or clauses 3 "And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover

asyndeton

chiasmus

diacope

ellipsis

epanalepsis

epimone

epistrophe

hyperbaton

malapropism

metaphor

metonymy

onomatopoeia

paralepsis

parallelism

To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determind to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days." (Richard III, I, i) parenthesis insertion of some word or clause in a position that interrupts the normal syntactic flow of the sentence (asides are rather emphatic examples of this) "...Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered." ( Henry V, IV, iii) the repetition of conjunctions in a series of coordinate words, phrases, or clauses 4 "If there be cords, or knives, Poison, or fire, or suffocating streams, I'll not endure it." (Othello, III, iii) an explicit comparison between two things using "like" or "as" "My love is as a fever, longing still For that which longer nurseth the disease" (Sonnet CXLVII) the use of a part for the whole, or the whole for the part 5 "Take thy face hence." (Macbeth, V, iii)

polysyndeton

simile

synecdoche

According to literal interpretation, this example is itself a form of anadiplosis termed "gradatio," in which the anadiplosis is extended in a series of three or more clauses that repeat upon one another. 2 Also termed "antistrophe" or "epiphora," evidently depending upon one's source. The three forms seem to be utterly interchangeable. 3 When the parallelism involves the same length within the structure (same number of words and/or syllables), this is a device known as "isocolon". 4 The opposite of asyndeton. 5 This makes it a specific form of metonymy.

Usage Shifts
Editor's Note: The following points are liberally paraphrased from A Shakespeare Handbook, edited by Raymond Alden (New York: F. S. Crofts & Co., 1925). This is a work now in the public domain, but I like to give credit where due. The minor problem with doing a straight reprint of this material is that Alden's book is A) British, and B) 75 years old, and the grammarians of the times used terms such as "pluperfect," "subjunctive," and "ethical dative." In an effort to bring this material more into layman's terms, I've attempted a more friendly paraphrasing of the material. One part of speech is often substituted for another; this is most frequent with nouns and verbs. (See also "anthimeria" in the Rhetoric section.) In the dark backward and abysm of time. That may repeat and history his loss. This day shall gentle his condition. Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle. My death's sad tale may yet undeaf his ear. Temp., I, ii, 50 2 H 4, IV, i, 203 H 5, IV, iii, 63 R 2, II, iii, 87 R 2, II, i, 16

 Adjectives don't always mean what they seem to say; active and passive forms are sometimes interchangeable, as are those that signify cause or effect. Wherever in your sightless (= invisible) substances. There's something in 't That is deceivable (= deceptive). Oppressed with two weak (= weakening) evils, Macb., I, v, 50 T.N., IV, iii, 21 A.Y.L., II, vii, 132

Pronouns have irregular inflections; often the nominative case (he, she, who) is used instead of the objective case (him, her, whom). And he (= him) my husband best of all affects. Yes, you may have seen Cassio and she together. Making night hideous, and we fools of nature So horridly to shake our disposition. Pray you, who does the wolf love? M.W.W., IV, iv, 87 Oth., IV, ii, 3 Haml., I, iv, 54 Cor., II, i, 8

Verbs don't always agree with their subjects; most frequently a singular verb is used with a plural subject. These high wild hills and rough uneven ways Draws out our miles, and makes them wearisome. Their encounters, though not personal, hath been royally attorneyed. Three parts of him Is ours already. R 2, II, iii, 4-5 W.T., I, i, 28 J.C., I, iii, 154-55

Omission of the relative pronoun (e.g., "the woman that I love" becomes "the woman I love") is much more frequent than in modern English, being applied to the nominative case as well as the objective. I have a brother is condemn'd to die. Besides, our nearness to the King in love Is near the hate of those love not the King. M. for M., II, ii, 34 R 2, II, ii, 129

Note that the use of the subjunctive mood of verbs (e.g., "If I were you") is still strong; we barely use it in contemporary modern English, and the subjunctive mood has all but disappeared. Also in Shakespeare's time, the subjunctive mood could be used in independent as well as subordinate clauses.

The infinitive (to + verb, e.g., "to have" or "to eat") is used as a noun more frequently than in modern English; it is also frequently substituted for a gerund (verb + -ing). Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed [i.e., leave off feeding]. Too proud to be so valiant [i.e., of being so valiant]. Haml., III, iv, 66 Cor., I, i, 262

 Double-negatives are often used for emphasis of a point. Nor never could the noble Mortimer Receive so many, and all willingly. You may deny that you were not the mean Of my Lord Hastings' late imprisonment [i.e., deny that you were the mean]. 1 H 4, I, iii, 110

R 3, I, iii, 90

There is a high frequency of using "more" and "most" before words ending in -er or -est. Also, there are times when the -ly or -est ending is only used once when there are two modifiers that should take it. And his more braver daughter could control thee. With the most boldest and best hearts of Rome. And she will speak most bitterly and strange. The generous and gravest citizens. Temp., I, ii, 439 J.C., II, i, 121 M. for M., V, i, 36 M. for M., IV, vi, 13

There is often the omission of "to" or "for" preceding a personal pronoun. Although this usage is largely disappeared in contemporary speech, renmants still do exist (e.g., "Do me a favor"). Let me remember thee what thou has promis'd Which is not yet perform'd me. Who calls me villain... Tweaks me by the nose, gives me the lie i' the throat, As deep as to the lungs, who does me this? Temp., I, ii, 244

Haml., II, ii, 601

The possessive of the neuter pronoun it ("its") is regularly written as his, and sometimes as simply it. How far that little candle throws his beams! Since nature cannot choose his origin. The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth. It hath it original from much grief. M.V., V, i, 90 Haml., I, iv, 26 W.T., III, ii, 101 2 H 4, I, ii, 131

"That" often takes the place of "so that," "in that," "why," or "when" in certain clauses. The hum of either army stilly sounds, That (= so that) the fix'd sentinels almost receive The secret whispers of each other's watch. Albeit I will confess thy father's wealth Was the first motive that (= why) I woo'd thee, Anne. Is not this the day That (= when) Hermia should give answer of her choice? H 5, IV, Chorus, 6

M.W.W., III, iv, 14 M.N.D., IV, i, 140

The pronoun "other" is used as both singular and plural. For the other, Sir John, let me see. 2 H 4, III, ii, 131

And therefore is the glorious planet Sol In noble eminence enthron'd and spher'd Amidst the other.

T. & C., I, iii, 91

Occasionally "near" substitutes for "nearer"; likewise, sometimes verbs ending in an "s" sound take no change of form for the plural. Nor near (= nearer) no farther off, my gracious lord. My lord your son had only but the corpse (= corpses), The shadows and the shows of men to fight. R 2, III, ii, 64 2 H 4, I, i, 192

A Note on Shakespeare's Grammar

In order to read Shakespeare and other pre-modern writings with full comprehension, you need to be sure you understand a few now-obsolete grammatical features of English. The chief one is the use of the second person singular. In Shakespeare's day -- and in poetry for centuries after it had become obsolete in vernacular speech -- the distinction between the second person singular and the second person plural was very much alive. So first you need to grasp the grammatical forms. Next you need to become more aware of their connotations. You will find it helpful to draw on your knowledge of French, German, or Spanish -- languages which retain a similar set of connotations for the second person singular.

1. Grammatical forms
A: Pronouns "In Old English, thou (and its related forms) was used for addressing one person; ye (and its related forms) for more than one. Within these categories, thou andye were used as clause subject, thee and you as object. "During Middle English, 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. "During Early Modern English, [the language of Shakespeare's time] 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. Ye continued in use, but by the end of the 16th century it was restricted to archaic, religious, or literary contexts. By 1700, the thou forms were also largely restricted in this way." -- The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, ed. David Crystal (CUP: 1995), p. 71
Subject Singular Plural thou you Object thee ye Possessive thine yours thyself yourself

B: Verb conjugations
I to be Present Past to have Present I have thou hast has/hath have have have I am I was thou art thou wert is was are were are were are were 2nd person he/she we you they

Past to do Present Past to see Present Past to grow Present Past

I had I do I did see saw grow grew

thou hadst thou dost thou didst thou seest thou sawest thou growest thou grewest

had does / doth did sees/seeth saw grows/groweth grew

had do did see saw grow grew

had do did see say grow grew

had do did see saw grow grew

2. Connotations
"By the time of Shakespeare, you had developed the number 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 reply with you. "Of particular interest are those cases where an extra emotional element entered the situation, and the use of thou or you broke the expected conventions. Thou commonly expressed special intimacy or affection; you, formality, politeness, and distance. Thou could also be used, even by an inferior to a superior, to express such feelings as anger and contempt. The use of thou to a person of equal rank could thus easily count as an insult, as Sir Toby Belch well knows when he advises Sir Andrew Aguecheek on how to write a challenge to 'the Count's youth' (Viola): 'if thou thou'st him some thrice, it shall not be amiss' (Twelfth Night, III.ii.42), himself using a demeaning thou in a speech situation where the norm is you. Likewise, the use of you when thou was expected (such as from master to servant) would also require special explanation." -- The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, ed. David Crystal (CUP: 1995), p. 71

Thou
The word thou (/a/ in most dialects) is a second person singular pronoun in English. It is now largely archaic, having been replaced in almost all contexts by you. It is used in parts of Northern England and by Scots (/u/). Thou is the nominative form; the oblique/objective form is thee (functioning as both accusative and dative), and the possessive is thy or thine. When thou is the grammatical subject of a finite verb in the indicative mood, the verb form ends on t, most often with the ending -(e)st (e.g., "thou goest"; "thou dost"), but in some cases just -t (e.g., "thou art"; "thou shalt"). In Middle English, thou was sometimes abbreviated by putting a small "u" over the letter thorn: . Originally, thou was simply the singular counterpart to the plural pronoun ye, derived from an ancient Indo-European root. Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances (see TV distinction). In the 17th century, thou fell into disuse

in the standard language but persisted, sometimes in altered form, in regional dialects of England and Scotland, as well as in the language of such religious groups as theSociety of Friends. Early English translations of the Bible used thou and never you as the singular second-person pronoun, with the double effect of maintaining thou in usage and also imbuing it with an air of religious solemnity that is antithetical to its former sense of familiarity or disrespect.[2] The use of the pronoun was also common in poetry. The fact that early English translations of the Bible used the familiar form of the second person in no way indicates "disrespect" and is not surprising. The familiar form is used when speaking to God, at least in French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian and Scottish Gaelic (all of which maintain the use of an "informal" singular form of the second person in modern speech). In standard modern English, thou continues to be used only in formal religious contexts, in literature that seeks to reproduce archaic language and in certain fixed phrases such as "holier than thou" and "fare thee well". For this reason, many associate the pronoun with solemnity or formality. Many dialects have compensated for the lack of a singular/plural distinction caused by the disappearance of thou and ye through the creation of new plural pronouns or pronominal constructions, such as you all, y'all, yinz, youse, you ens, you mob, you lot, your lot and you guys. These vary regionally and are usually restricted to colloquial speech.

thou/you
S. L. Mein wrote: When and how did you take the place of thou? Thou hast posed a most interesting question. I hasten to answer thee. From the beginning of Middle English, thou was the second person pronoun used to address another person, and ye was used to address more than one person. The objective singular was thee, and the objective plural was you. In the 13th century a distinction developed between the use of thou/thee andye/you, depending on the social situation. Thou/thee was used familiarly, when speaking to children and other family members, lovers, or social inferiors. Since the occasional misuse of thou in more formal situations was interpreted as patronizing, it developed a contemptuous or scornful connotation. In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, Sir Toby Belch urges a letter to be written to Viola: "...taunt him with the license of Inke: if thou thou'st him some thrice, it shall not be amisse." (meaning: If you speak familiarly and insultingly to him...) My daughter thought Shakespeare made mistakes in using these pronouns, so she corrected him by substituting "thou" for "you" when reading aloud. In fact Shakespeare and other writers were not consistent, or at least, modern readers can't always figure out why one or the other pronoun was used. In formal social situations, the historically plural ye/you began to be used in the singular, as a sign of respect when speaking to a person of higher rank. This distinction spread to England and throughout Europe because of the similar use oftu/vous in French (and in many modern languages). By the 16th century ye/you was beginning to be used in all social situations. Originally ye was in subject position and you was in object position. But because they were pronounced alike, ye and you eventually became interchangeable. By about 1600 you had replaced ye, except in liturgical and other elevated language. Thou/thee had disappeared from standard English by the 18th century but survives in certain British dialects, and in poetry and liturgy. Quakers still use these pronouns, considering all human beings equal before God, though they often usethee in subject position. Ye also survives in dialectal use and in liturgy. The distinctions were so confusing, no wonder you is now used in the singular and plural! To avoid confusion youse can always say you-all or you guys. Are other useful grammatical/usage distinctions also in danger of disappearing? Carol