1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English Text Construction
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper maps the lexico-grammatical resources of the representation of time in looking in particular at the way futurity is portrayed. The study is based on concordance analysis of the top full lexical items in frequency lists and of time-related keywords (generated using the other Shakespearian tragedies as a reference corpus). Paying particular attention to the occurrences in Macbeth and his wife’s speeches, the analysis centres on the collocations and semantic preferences of the items identified. The top full lexical items in the wordlist are shown to be related to the notion of time, especially contrasting the present and the future, hence contributing to the pace of the plot in the play. Keywords highlight the connection of the notion of time with the notion of fear and with the impossibility of predicting the future. In general, the analysis depicts a conceptual space in which time and futurity are not connected to hope but to fear, thus creating a menacing universe that has its origins in the protagonist himself, in the tension between deceitful prediction and frustrated volition.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
2018-08-27
2024-10-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bergs, Alexander
    2010 Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics14 (2): 217–238.10.1017/S1360674310000067
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berry, Francis
    1958 Poets’ Grammar: Person, Time, and Mood in Poetry. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloom, Harold
    2005 [1998] An essay by Harold Bloom. InMacbeth. Annotated Shakespeare, Burton Ruffel (ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 169–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2008 [1987] “Introduction,” from Macbeth (Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations series). InBloom’s Shakespeare Through the Ages. Macbeth, Harold Bloom (ed.). New York: Infobase Publishing, 339–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Booth, Stephen
    1983 King Lear, Macbeth, Indefinition and Tragedy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boroditsky, Lera
    2000 Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition75 (1): 1–28.10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H.
    1973 Space, time, semantics, and the child. InCognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, Timothy E. Moore (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 27–63.10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50008‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clemen, Wolfang
    1951 The Development of Shakespeare’s Imagery. London: Methuen and Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Consiglio, Maria Cristina
    2008 E-Lears. A corpus approach to Shakespeare and Tate. InThe State of Stylistics, Greg Watson (ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 191–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Craig, William J.
    (ed.) 1916 The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (The Oxford Shakespeare). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Crystal, David & Ben Crystal
    2004 Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion. London: Penguin. Online edition: www.shakespeareswords.com (Last accessed on28 December 2017).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2014 [2001] Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and other Texts. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002 Computers, language and characterisation: An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. InConversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium, Ulla Melander-Marttala , Carin Ostman & Merja Kytö (eds). Uppsala: Universitestryckeriet, 11–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahl, Östen
    2000 The grammar of future time reference in European languages. InTense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Östen Dahl (ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 309–328.10.1515/9783110197099.2.309
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197099.2.309 [Google Scholar]
  15. Engler, Balz , Regula Hohl , Christian Gebhard , Lukas Rosenthaler & Marco Fava
    2003 Hyperhamlet. Basel: Department of English, University of Basel.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gentner, Dedre
    2001 Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning. InSpatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, Merideth Gattis (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 203–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Guj, Luisa
    1986 “Macbeth” and the seeds of time. Shakespeare StudiesXVIII: 175–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Harcourt, John B.
    1961 “I Pray You, Remember the Porter”. Shakespeare Quarterly12: 393–402.10.2307/2867456
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2867456 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hays, Michael L.
    2008 [2003] “Macbeth: Loyal Stewards and Royal Succession,” from Shakespearean Tragedy as Chivalric Romance. InBloom’s Shakespeare Through the Ages. Macbeth, Harold Bloom (ed.). New York: Infobase Publishing, 350–358.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Honigmann, Ernst A. J.
    1989 Past, present and future in Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra . InMyriad-minded Shakespeare. Contemporary Interpretations of Shakespeare. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 93–111.10.1007/978‑1‑349‑19814‑6_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19814-6_7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hope, Jonathan
    2003 Shakespeare’s Grammar. London: Thomson Learning.10.5040/9781474243391
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474243391 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hope, Jonathan & Michael Witmore
    2014 The language of Macbeth. InMacbeth: The State of Play, Ann Thompson (ed.). London: Bloomsbury, 183–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Howard-Hill, Trevor H.
    (ed.) 1971 The Oxford Shakespeare Concordances. Macbeth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kermode, Frank
    2000 Shakespeare’s Language. London: Penguin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Knight, Wilson G.
    2002 [1931] The milk of concord: Life-themes in Macbeth. InG. Wilson Knight. Collected Works. The Imperial Theme, G. Wilson Knight , London and New York: Routledge, 125–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Knights, Lionel C.
    1946 Explorations: Essays in Criticism Mainly on the Literature of the Seventeenth Century. London: Chatto and Windus.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolbe, Frederick C.
    1930 Shakepseare’s Way. London: Sheed and Ward.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Leech, Geoffrey N. & Mick Short
    1981 Style in Fiction. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Louw, Bill
    1993 The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker , Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 157–176.10.1075/z.64.11lou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11lou [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997 The role of corpora in critical literary appreciation. InTeaching and Language Corpora, Anne Wichmann , Steven Fligelstone , Tony McEnery & Gerry Knowles (eds). London: Longman, 240–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mahlberg, Michaela & Dan McIntyre
    2011 A case for corpus stylistics: Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale. English Text Construction4 (2): 204–227.10.1075/etc.4.2.03mah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.4.2.03mah [Google Scholar]
  33. McDonald, Russ F.
    2006 Shakespeare’s Late Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511483783
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511483783 [Google Scholar]
  34. Moore, Peter R.
    2009 Epicurean time in Macbeth. Brief Chronicles: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship StudiesI: 141–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mueller, Martin , William Parod , Jeffrey Cousens , Philip Burns & John Norstad
    2006 WordHoard. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Murphy, Sean
    2007 Now I am alone: A corpus stylistic approach to Shakespearian soliloquies. InPapers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching, Volume 1: Papers from LAEL PG 2006, Costas Gabrielatos , Richard Slessor & Johann W. Unger (eds). Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, 66–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. OED Online
    OED Online, Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/ (Last accessed on9 June 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Open Source Shakespeare
    Open Source Shakespeare. An Experiment in Literary Technology. Fairfax: George Mason University. https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/ (Last accessed on18 September 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Palmer, Frank
    2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  40. Plescia, Iolanda
    2010 Il discorso del futuro in Macbeth. Memoria di Shakespeare7: 135–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Rauber, D. F.
    1969 Macbeth, Macbeth, Macbeth. Criticism11 (1): 59–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Salkie, Raphael
    2010  Will: Tense or modal or both?English Language and Linguistics14 (2): 187–215.10.1017/S1360674310000055
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000055 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schneider, Susanne
    2006 Future time reference in English and Italian. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica6: 1–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Scott, Mike
    2006 Key words and key sections: Exploring Shakespeare. Paper presented atthe 7th Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (TaLC), Université Paris 7 – Denis Diderot, 1–4 July 2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016 Wordsmith Tools 7.0. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Scott, Mike & Christopher Tribble
    2006 Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  47. Semino, Elena & Mick Short
    2004 Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Serpieri, Alessandro
    1986 Retorica e immaginario. Parma: Pratiche.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Shakespeare Corpus
    Shakespeare Corpus. Lexical Analysis Software Ltd. & Oxford University Press. www.lexically.net/wordsmith/support/shakespeare.html (Last accessed on18 September 2018).
  50. Sinclair, John
    1996 The search for units of meaning. Textus9 (1): 75–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 2004 Trust the Text: Language Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith, Emma
    2013 Macbeth. Language and Writing. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.10.5040/9781408166420
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781408166420 [Google Scholar]
  53. Spevack, Marvin
    1973 The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Stubbs, Michael
    2005 Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistics analysis. Language and Literature14 (1): 5–24.10.1177/0963947005048873
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947005048873 [Google Scholar]
  55. Toolan, Michael
    2009 Narrative Progression in the Short Story: A Corpus Stylistic Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1978 On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. InUniversals of Human Language, Volume3, Joseph H. Greenberg , Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 369–400.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams, George W.
    2004 ‘Time for such a word’. Verbal echoing in Macbeth. InShakespeare and Language, Catherine M. S. Alexander (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 240–250.10.1017/CBO9780511617379.015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617379.015 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zyngier, Sonia
    1999 “Smudges on the canvas”? A corpus stylistics approach to Macbeth. InPoetics, Linguistics and History: Discourses of War and Conflict, Ina Biermann & Annette Combrick (eds). Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University, 529–545.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
Loading
‘Come what come may, Time, and the Houre, runs through the roughest Day’
English Text Construction 11, 81 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00005.bon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus stylistics; futurity; Macbeth; Shakespeare; time

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error