Abstract
This study uses variationist sociolinguistic methodology to explore the construction of gender in four of Shakespeare’s comedies. Gender performance is at issue in these plays specifically, not only because, in Shakespeare’s time at least, young male actors play the female roles, but also because each play contains a female character in male disguise. By analysing and comparing the patterns of variation used by Shakespeare’s female, male and “female as male” characters, this study provides further insight into Shakespeare’s construction and conceptualisation of gender. Further, by comparing the patterns of gender variation found in these plays with non-fiction data on the gendered variation of the period (Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.), it is possible to investigate how accurately Shakespeare captures the sociolinguistic variation present in his society. This study hopes to provide support both for the validity of using sociolinguistic methods to study literature but also for using data from literature in studies of historical sociolinguistic variation and change.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Professor Miriam Meyerhoff for her huge investment of time and support in this project from the very beginning. We are also very grateful to Professor Jonathan Hope and Dr Lori Leigh for their invaluable advice and expertise. We would also like to thank Dr Lisa Wood for her statistical support. Thank you to the audiences for earlier iterations of this research at NWAV 2018, NZ Linguistic society conference 2017 and HiSoN Summer School 2017. Thank you to Toni Myers for proofreading and our anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valued comments. Finally, thank you to friends and colleagues at Victoria University of Wellington, for conversations, fresh perspectives and much needed distractions. Exit, pursued by a bear.
All lines spoken by Viola, Act 1 Scene 2
| Play | Character | Act, scene, line | Breeches | Rank | Addressee | Speech text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | Viola | I,2,48 | f | m | Sailors | What country, friends, is this? | |
| TN | Viola | I,2,50 | y | f | m | Sailors | And what should I do in Illyria? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,50 | y | f | m | Sailors | My brother he is in Elysium. |
| TN | Viola | I,2,50 | y | f | m | Sailors | Perchance he is not drown’d: what think you, sailors? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,54 | y | f | m | Sailors | O my poor brother! and so perchance may he be. |
| TN | Viola | I,2,65 | y | f | m | Sailors | For saying so, there’s gold: |
| TN | Viola | I,2,65 | y | f | m | Sailors | Mine own escape unfoldeth to my hope, |
| TN | Viola | I,2,65 | y | f | m | Sailors | Where to thy speech serves for authority, |
| TN | Viola | I,2,65 | y | f | m | Sailors | The like of him. Know’st thou this country? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,71 | y | f | m | Sailors | Who governs here? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,73 | y | f | m | Sailors | What is the name? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,75 | y | f | m | Sailors | Orsino! I have heard my father name him: |
| TN | Viola | I,2,75 | y | f | m | Sailors | He was a bachelor then. |
| TN | Viola | I,2,82 | y | f | m | Sailors | What’s she? |
| TN | Viola | I,2,89 | y | f | m | Sailors | O that I served that lady |
| TN | Viola | I,2,89 | y | f | m | Sailors | And might not be delivered to the world, |
| TN | Viola | I,2,89 | y | f | m | Sailors | Till I had made mine own occasion mellow, |
| TN | Viola | I,2,89 | y | f | m | Sailors | What my estate is! |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | There is a fair behavior in thee, captain; |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | And though that nature with a beauteous wall |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | Doth oft close in pollution, yet of thee |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | I will believe thou hast a mind that suits |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | With this thy fair and outward character. |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | I prithee, and I’ll pay thee bounteously, |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | Conceal me what I am, and be my aid |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | For such disguise as haply shall become |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | The form of my intent. I’ll serve this duke: |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | Thou shall present me as an eunuch to him: |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | It may be worth thy pains; for I can sing |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | And speak to him in many sorts of music |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | That will allow me very worth his service. |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | What else may hap to time I will commit; |
| TN | Viola | I,2,96 | y | f | m | Captain | Only shape thou thy silence to my wit. |
-
[1] Under Silverstein’s interpretation it also seems possible for gender to be a “first level indexicality” but we will set this point aside for now.
References
Adachi, Naorō. 1976. Kabuki Gekijō Oyama Fūzoku Saiken. Tokyo: Tenbōsha.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2008. Sexed texts: Language, sexuality and gender. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Baxter, Judith. 2011. Survival or success? A critical exploration of the use of ‘double-voiced discourse’ by women business leaders in the UK. Discourse & Communication 5(3). 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311405590.Search in Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005a. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters, vol. 51, 1421–1503. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110923223Search in Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005b. The role of the individual in language change from the point of view of social network analysis. Logos and Language 6(1). 30–53.Search in Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118257227.ch5Search in Google Scholar
Blaxter, Tam. 2015. Gender and language change in Old Norse sentential negatives. Language Variation and Change 27(3). 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000125.Search in Google Scholar
Brandon, James. 2012. Reflections on the “Onnagata”. Asian Theatre Journal 29(1). 122–125. https://doi.org/10.1353/atj.2012.0001.Search in Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary. 2001. The whiteness of nerds: Superstandard English and racial markedness. Journal of linguistic anthropology 11(1). 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.1.84.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2003. Gender issues in language change. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23. 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190503000266.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2007. The myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1992. Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide 13. 173–218. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.13.2.02cha.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1). 29–59. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.03cul.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Cecelia. 2010. Hip-hop, white immigrant youth, and African American Vernacular English: Accommodation as an identity choice. Journal of English Linguistics 38(3). 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424210374551.Search in Google Scholar
Demmen, Jane. 2009. Charmed and chattering tongues: Investigating the functions and effects of key word clusters in the dialogue of Shakespeare’s female characters. Lancaster, United Kingdom: Lancaster University Unpublished MA Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Downes, William. 1998. Language and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139163781Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1996. Vowels and nail polish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. In Deborah Cameron & Don Kulick (eds.), The language and sexuality reader, 189–195. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x.Search in Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alver. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, Bettina. 2010. Corpus Linguistics and the study of literature: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Froehlich, Heather. 2011. Do I put up that womanly defense? This tune goes manly: A corpus stylistic study of gender-specific grammatical constructions of possession in two Shakespearean plays. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde Masters Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gal, Susan. 1978. Peasant men can’t get wives: Language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500005303.Search in Google Scholar
Haeri, Noolifar. 1994. A linguistic innovation of women in Cairo. Language Variation and Change 6. 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500001599.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2007. Social constructionism, postmodernism and feminist sociolinguistics. Gender and Language 1(1). 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.2007.1.1.51.Search in Google Scholar
Hope, Jonathan & Michael Witmore. 2014. Quantification and the language of later Shakespeare. Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare 31. 123–149. https://doi.org/10.4000/shakespeare.2830.Search in Google Scholar
Hota, Sobhan Raj, Shlomo Argamon, & Rebecca Chung. 2006. Gender in Shakespeare: Automatic stylistics gender character classification using syntactic, lexical and lemma features. Chicago, IL: Chicago Colloquium on Digital Humanities and Computer Science.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Eric M. 2003. Open source Shakespeare: An experiment in literary technology. https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/ (accessed 14 August 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Kallel, Amel. 2002. The age variable in the rise of periphrastic ‘do’ in English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 161–185.Search in Google Scholar
Kelly, Katherine E. 1990. The queen’s two bodies: Shakespeare’s boy actress in breeches. Theatre Journal 42(1). 81–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207559.Search in Google Scholar
Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka. 2012. Class, age and gender-based patterns. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 307–331. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118257227.ch17Search in Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2006. Hegemonic identity-making in narrative. In Anna De Fina, Deborah Schiffrin & Michael Bamberg (eds.), Discourse and identity, 261–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511584459.014Search in Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1. 119–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500000168.Search in Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1993. Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5. 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500001447.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2. 205–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500000338.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2015. The discovery of the unexpected. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 1(1). 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.1.1.01lab.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and a woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar
Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1936. The great chain of being; a study of the history of an idea. In The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University, 1933, by Arthur O. Lovejoy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leupp, Gary P. 1997. Male colors: The construction of homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan. Berkeley, Californina: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela. 2007. Corpus stylistics: bridging the gap between linguistic and literary studies. Text, discourse and corpora, 219–246. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Mezur, Katherine. 2005. Beautiful boys/Outlaw bodies: devising Kabuki female-likeness. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9781403979131Search in Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1996. Gender difference. In Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the corpus of Early English correspondence, 317–327. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Making the best use of ’bad’ data: Evidence for sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 4. 499–533.Search in Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy A. & Dennis R. Preston. 2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 335–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2007. Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of sociolinguistics 11(4). 478–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00334.x.Search in Google Scholar
Savas, Minae. 2008. Feminine madness in the Japanese Noh Theatre. Ohio State University, Ohio, United States of America. PhD Thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Shannon, Laurie. 2009. The eight animals in Shakespeare; Or before the human. PMLA 124(2). 472–479. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2009.124.2.472.Search in Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1996. Gender in play on the Shakespearean stage: Boy heroines and female pages. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.13834Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23. 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(03)00013-2.Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85(1). 58–108. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0084.Search in Google Scholar
Thengs, Kjetil V. 2016. Compactness of expression in Middle English legal documents. Germanic Philology 7. 163–181.Search in Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1(2). 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500000488.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2000. Bills, accounts, inventories: Everyday trilingual activities in the business world of later medieval England. In David A. Trotter (ed.), Multilingualism in later medieval Britain, 149–156. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Guanda. 2013. Should Nandan be abolished? The debate over female impersonation in early republican China and its underlying cultural logic. Asian Theatre Journal 30 (1). 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1353/atj.2013.0008.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
