Shakespeare’s Language

doi:10.1017/9781009205443.019

16 - Shakespeare’s Language

from Part II - Lighthouse Works and Authors

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2025

Jonathan Culpeper and

Sean Murphy

Edited by

Merja Kytö and

Erik Smitterberg

Show author details

Merja Kytö: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Erik Smitterberg: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter takes a perspective on Shakespeare’s language that is more in tune with linguistics than literary criticism. Hence, it covers areas of language typically and traditionally discussed within linguistics, including phonology, grammar, lexis and semantics, but also includes pragmatics and, briefly, Conversation Analysis. It begins with a consideration of the label ‘Shakespeare’s language’ and what exactly that might encompass; the role of Shakespeare’s language in the study of the history of English; and popular myths that have arisen around Shakespeare’s language. It concludes with a reflection on methods of study, especially digital methods. It strives not only to acknowledge key research, but also to give the flavour of some of the findings of that research.

Keywords

methods myths Shakespeare Shakespeare’s language Oxford English Dictionary

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Documentation, Sources of Data and Modelling
, pp. 385 - 406

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009205443.019 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, Edwin. 1881 [1869]. A Shakespearian Grammar. Third edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia. 2001. Understanding Shakespeare’s grammar: studies in small words. In Adamson, Hunter and Magnusson (eds.), pp. 210–236.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia, Hunter, Lynette and Magnusson, Lynne (eds.). 2001. Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language: A Guide. London: Thomson.Google Scholar

Alexander, Catherine (ed.). 2004. Shakespeare and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617379CrossRef Google Scholar

Archer, Dawn, Culpeper, Jonathan and Rayson, Paul. 2009. Love – ‘a familiar or a devil’? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In Archer, Dawn (ed.), What’s in a Word-List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 137–157.Google Scholar

Auerbach, David Benjamin. 2019. Statistical infelicities in the New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews 33.1: 28–31.Google Scholar

Barcelona Sánchez, Antonio. 1995. Metaphorical models of romantic love in Romeo and Juliet. Journal of Pragmatics 24.6: 667–688.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan (ed.). Forthcoming. NCHEL, Vol. III: Change, Modelling and Ideology.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 1983. Shakespeare’s Language: An Introduction. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 1996. Essays on Shakespeare’s Language: 1st. Series. Misterton: Language Press.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 2002a. A Grammar of Shakespeare’s Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1007/978-1-4039-1915-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 2002b. Forms of address in Hamlet. In Lenz, Katja and Möhlig, Ruth (eds.), Of Dyuersitie & Chaunge of Language. Essays Presented to Manfred Görlach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 305–318.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 2004. Shakespeare’s Non-Standard English: A Dictionary of His Informal Language. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Brewer, Charlotte. 2013. Shakespeare, word-coining, and the OED. Shakespeare Survey 65: 345–357.Google Scholar

Brewer, Charlotte. 2016. Shakespeare and the OED. In Smith, Bruce R., Rowe, Katherine, Hoenselaars, Ton, Kusunoki, Akiko, Murphy, Andrew and da Cunha Resende, Aimara (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to the Worlds of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240–246.Google Scholar

Brook, George. 1976. The Language of Shakespeare. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18.2: 159–212.10.1017/S0047404500013464CrossRef Google Scholar

Busse, Beatrix. 2006. Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Busse, Ulrich. 1998. Forms of address in Shakespeare’s plays: problems and findings. In Schulze, Rainer (ed.), Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar

Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Busse, Ulrich. 2008. An inventory of directives in Shakespeare’s King Lear. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 85–114.10.1075/pbns.176.06busCrossRef Google Scholar

Carlyle, Thomas. 1840. On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. (Lecture II: The Hero as Poet.) London: James Fraser.Google Scholar

Cercignani, Fausto. 1981. Shakespeare’s Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Sandra (ed.). 2012–. Arden Shakespeare Dictionaries. London: Bloomsbury. (Formerly Continuum Shakespeare Dictionaries).Google Scholar

Cooper, Marilyn. 1981. Implicature, convention, and The Taming of the Shrew. Poetics 10.1: 1–14.Google Scholar

Craig, Hugh and Kinney, Arthur F. (eds.). 2009. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605437CrossRef Google Scholar

Crunelle-Vanrigh, Anny. 2013. Fause Frenche enough: Kate’s French in Shakespeare’s Henry V. English Text Construction 6.1: 60–88.10.1075/etc.6.1.04cruCrossRef Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2008. ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755095CrossRef Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2016. The Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acref/9780199668427.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Crystal, David. Forthcoming. Applying historical phonology. In Beal, Joan (ed.), NCHEL, Vol. III: Change, Modelling and Ideology.Google Scholar

Crystal, David and Crystal, Ben. 2002. Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion. London: Penguin. Online edition: www.shakespeareswords.com/.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Guardamagna, Caterina. 2018. Shakespeare’s Latin: a pragmatic perspective. Paper presented at ICEHL XX, Edinburgh.10.3726/b11778CrossRef Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Hardie, Andrew and Demmen, Jane (eds.). 2023a. The Arden Encyclopedia of Shakespeare’s Language: Dictionary A–M. Volume 1. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Hardie, Andrew and Demmen, Jane (eds.). 2023b. The Arden Encyclopedia of Shakespeare’s Language: Dictionary N–Z. Volume 2. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2: 175–199.10.1075/jhp.1.2.03culCrossRef Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Sean, Murphy, Hardie, Andrew and Gillings, Mathew. 2021. Shakespeare’s Language: Revealing Meanings and Exploring Myths [MOOC]. Future Learn: www.futurelearn.com/courses/shakespeares-language.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Oliver, Samuel J.. 2020. Pragmatic noise in Shakespeare’s plays. In Jonsson, Ewa and Larsson, Tove (eds.), Voices Past and Present – Studies of Involved, Speech-Related and Spoken Texts: In Honor of Merja Kytö. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 12–29.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Sam Schmück and Jonathan Hope. Forthcoming. Shakespeare’s neologisms.Google Scholar

Del Villano, Bianca. 2018. Using the Devil with Courtesy: Shakespeare and the Language of (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Elam, Keir. 1984. Shakespeare’s Universe of Discourse: Language Games in the Comedies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2016. Shakespeare’s grammar. In Smith, Bruce R. (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to the Worlds of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 184–191.Google Scholar

Findlay, Alison. 2020. Epilogues and last words in Shakespeare: exploring patterns in a small corpus. Language and Literature 29.3: 327–346.10.1177/0963947020949442CrossRef Google Scholar

Foster, John. 1908. A Shakespeare Word-Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Franken, Gereon. 1995. Systematische Etymologie: Untersuchung einer ‘Mischsprache’ am Beispiel des Shakespeare-Wortschatzes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Franz, Wilhelm. 1924. Shakespeare-Grammatik. Third edition. Heidelberg: C. Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

Freeman, Donald. 1995. ‘Catch[ing] the nearest way’: Macbeth and cognitive metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics 24.6: 689–708.Google Scholar

Garner, Bryan A. 1987 [1982]. Shakespeare’s Latinate neologisms. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 207–228.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Anthony J. 1997. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Speech: Studies in Renaissance Literature. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar

Hardie, Andrew and van Dorst, Isolde. 2020. A survey of grammatical variability in Early Modern English drama. Language and Literature 29.3: 275–301.Google Scholar

Hope, Jonathan. 1994. The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511518942CrossRef Google Scholar

Hope, Jonathan. 2003. Shakespeare’s Grammar. London: Thomson.Google Scholar

Hope, Jonathan. 2016. Who invented gloomy? Lies people want to believe about Shakespeare. Memoria di Shakespeare 3: 21–45.Google Scholar

Hope, Jonathan and Witmore, Michael. 2010. The hundredth psalm to the tune of ‘Green Sleeves’: digital approaches to Shakespeare’s language of genre. Shakespeare Quarterly 61.3: 357–390.Google Scholar

Houston, John Porter. 1988. Shakespearean Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar

Hulme, Hilda. 1962. Explorations in Shakespeare’s Language: Some Problems of Lexical Meaning in the Dramatic Text. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ingham, Richard and Ingham, Michael. 2011. Subject-verb inversion and iambic rhythm in Shakespeare’s dramatic verse. In Ravassat, Mireille and Culpeper, Jonathan (eds.), Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches. London: Continuum, pp. 98–118.Google Scholar

Ingham, Richard and Ingham, Michael. 2023. Native woodnotes wild: Shakespeare, his contemporaries, and the syntax of negation. Language and Literature 32.3: 355–375.10.1177/09639470231160579CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith. 2014. Shakespeare’s English: A Practical Linguistic Guide. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Keidel, James L., Davis, Philip M., González-Díaz, Victorina, Martin, Clara D. and Thierry, Guillaume. 2013. How Shakespeare tempests the brain: neuroimaging insights. Cortex 49.4: 913–919.10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.011CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kizelbach, Urszula. 2014. The Pragmatics of Early Modern Politics: Power and Kingship in Shakespeare’s History Plays. New York and Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Kökeritz, Helge. 1953. Shakespeare’s Pronunciation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Kolentsis, Alysia. 2020. Shakespeare’s Common Language. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Kopytko, Roman. 1995. Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 515–540.10.1075/pbns.35.27kopCrossRef Google Scholar

Lootens, Tricia. 1996. Lost Saints: Silence, Gender, and the Victorian Literary Canonization. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar

Magnusson, Lynne. 2019. The dynamics of Shakespearean dialogue. In Magnusson and Schalkwyk (eds.), pp. 72–92.Google Scholar

Magnusson, Lynne and Schalkwyk, David (eds.). 2019. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marelj, Jelena. 2020. Shakespearean Character: Language in Performance. London: Arden.Google Scholar

Massai, Sonia. 2020. Shakespeare’s Accents: Voicing Identity in Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Milroy, Leslie. 1999. Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In Bex, Tony and Watts, Richard J. (eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 173–206.Google Scholar

Morgan, Oliver. 2019. Turn-Taking in Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean. 2015. I will proclaim myself what I am: corpus stylistics and the language of Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Language and Literature 24.4: 338–354.Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean, Archer, Dawn and Demmen, Jane. 2020. Mapping the links between gender, status and genre in Shakespeare’s plays. Language and Literature 29.3: 223–245.10.1177/0963947020949438CrossRef Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean, Culpeper, Jonathan, Gillings, Mathew and Pace-Sigge, Michael. 2020. What do students find difficult when they read Shakespeare? Problems and solutions. Language and Literature 29.3: 302–326.Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean, Culpeper, Jonathan and Roberts, Ellen. Forthcoming. Shakespeare’s Affixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2001. Shakespeare’s new words. In Adamson, Hunter and Magnusson (eds.), pp. 237–255.Google Scholar

Onions, Charles. 1986 [1911]. A Shakespeare Glossary. Second revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1987. Shakespeare and the English language. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2007. Concepts for analyzing deception in discourse intended to be persuasive: two case studies from Shakespearean drama. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8.1: 109–126.10.1075/jhp.8.1.06rudCrossRef Google Scholar

Salmon, Vivian. 1987a [1965]. Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 265–300.Google Scholar

Salmon, Vivian. 1987b [1967]. Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 37–70.Google Scholar

Salmon, Vivian. 1987c [1970]. Some functions of Shakespearean word-formation. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 193–206.Google Scholar

Salmon, Vivian and Burness, Edwina (eds.). 1987. A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schäfer, Jürgen. 1980. Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as Test Cases. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Scheler, Manfred. 1982. Shakespeares Englisch: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Einführung. Vol. 12. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar

Schmidt, Alexander. 1971. Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary, Vols. I and II. Third edition, revised and enlarged by Gregor Sarrazin. New York: Dover Publications.10.1515/9783110882544CrossRef Google Scholar

Shore, Daniel. 2015. Shakespeare’s constructicon. Shakespeare Quarterly 66.2: 113–136.Google Scholar

Spevack, Marvin. 1968–1980. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar

Spevack, Marvin. 1993. A Shakespeare Thesaurus (Shakespeare Database). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter. 1987. At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics: notes on the replacement of th by s in the third person singular in English. English Studies 68: 406–432.Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter. 2003. Pronominal usage in Shakespeare: between sociolinguistics and conversational analysis. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251–307.10.1075/pbns.107.12steCrossRef Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995. Interjections in Early Modern English: from imitation of spoken to conventions of written language. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 439–465.Google Scholar

Taylor, Estelle W. 1987 [1976]. Shakespeare’s use of eth and es endings of verbs in the First Folio. In Salmon and Burness (eds.), pp. 349–369.Google Scholar

Taylor, Gary and Egan, Gabriel (eds.). 2017. The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780199591169.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Thierry, Guillaume, Martin, Clara D., González-Díaz, Victorina, Rezaie, Roozbeh, Roberts, Neil and Davis, Philip M.. 2008. Event-related potential characterisation of the Shakespearean functional shift in narrative sentence structure. Neuroimage 40.2: 923–931.Google Scholar PubMed

Tissari, Heli. 2006. Is love a tender thing? Metaphors of the word ‘love’ in Shakespeare’s plays. Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online 4.1: 131–174.Google Scholar

Vickers, Brian. 2004. Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vickers, Brian. 2011. Shakespeare and authorship studies in the twenty-first century. Shakespeare Quarterly 62.1: 106–142.Google Scholar

Wikberg, Kay. 1975. Yes-No Questions and Answers in Shakespeare’s Plays: A Study in Text Linguistics. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar

Woolf, Virginia. 1937. Craftsmanship. Part of series Words Fail Me broadcast by BBC radio on 29 April 1937.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.