Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics

Home ] Up ]



William Shakespeare (1564-1616)


Source: etext.lib.virginia.edu/.../ small/shakespeare.htm  


just out

Jonathan Hope (2003), Shakespeare's Grammar. London: Arden Shakespeare.

online resources  


  • Jones, Katherine Duncan. 2001. Ungentle Shakespeare. London: Arden Shakespeare.

  • Wells, Stanley. 1997. The Poet and His Plays. London: Methuen.

  • Schoenbaum, Sam. 1970. Shakespeare's Lives. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shakespeare’s language

This is an ongoing collection of items related to Shakespeare’s language (and that of some of his contemporaries).  It is not comprehensive. Shakespeare’s language is defined widely - so this list includes some literary-critical studies that treat ‘language’ in a non-linguistic sense, as well as linguistic studies of Early Modern English which may not mention Shakespeare specifically. Inclusion of an item in this list does not imply that we agree with the methods applied or the conclusions drawn. Bradbrook (1954), Partridge (1979), Salmon (1987), Blake (1990a), and Calvo (1996) give evaluative overviews of the field in its successive states.

In some cases we have added brief notes describing or assessing an item.

Please send errors or additions to Jonathan Hope. You are welcome to include brief notes as below if you wish. We will acknowledge you as the author of the notes or not as you indicate.

Off-prints or books suitable for inclusion can be sent to:

Dr Jonathan Hope

Department of English Studies
Strathclyde University
Glasgow G1 1XH


Jonathan Hope (Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK)
Clara Calvo (Universidad de Murcia, Spain).


Abbreviations used:
JH = Jonathan Hope
IT = Ingrid Tieken




Abbott, Edwin A. 1870. A Shakespearian Grammar. 3rd ed., London; repr. in 1969, New York: Dover.

[JH: see also Blake 2002b, Hope 2003.]

Aers, David and Gunther Kress. 1981. ‘The language of social order: individual, society and historical process in King Lear’. In: David Aers, Bob Hodge and Gunther Kress (eds.), Literature, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. 75-99.

Aers, David, and Gunther Kress. 1982. ‘The politics of style: discourses of law and authority in Measure for Measure’. Style 16.1. 22-37.

Altman, Joel. 1989. ‘The practice of Shakespeare’s text’. Style 23. 466-500.

Ando, Sadao. 1976. A Descriptive Syntax of Christopher Marlowe’s language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

[JH: impressively full, but very much influenced in terms of organisation and length of treatment by 70s generative grammar - so sometimes difficult for a non-linguist to use, and not focussed, like Abbott, on explicating the differences between PDE and EME. Detailed contents listings, and exhaustive examples mittigate this somewhat. NB also p. 704 - list of constructions not found in Shakespeare. Reliance on (then) current theory means that his analysis of some features can appear anachronistic, for example: ‘Fearest thou thy person? is derived from Fearest thou for thy person?’ (p. 52) - when in fact would originally have been dative?, hence no preposition to ‘delete’, as he claims.]

Atwood, N.R. 1976. ‘Cordelia and Kent: their fateful choice of style’. Language and Style 9. 42-54.


Bacchielli, Rolando. 1992, ‘“A snapper-up of unconsidered trifles” (The Winter’s Tale IV, iii, 26): Shakespeare’s language awareness and his “considered” use of a peculiar lexical category’. In: C. Nocera Avila, N. Pantaleo, and D. Pezzini (eds.), 1992, Early Modern English: Trends, Schena. 95-119.

Baldwin, D.R. 1983. ‘Style in Shakespeare’s King John’. Language and Style 16. 64-76.

Barber, Charles. 1981. ‘“You” and “thou” in Shakespeare’s Richard III’. Leeds Studies in English n.s. 12. 273-289. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:163-179).

[JH: after Calvo (1992), the next-best thing on thou and you in Shakespeare, and probably the best place to start.]  

Barcelona, Antonio. 1995. ‘Metaphorical models of romantic love in Romeo and Juliet’. Journal of Pragmatics 24. 667-668.

Barish, Jonas A. 1960. Ben Jonson and the language of prose comedy. Harvard. (pp. 41-89 repr. as ‘Jonson’s dramatic prose’ in Watson 1970.)

Barry, J.G. 1981. ‘Had, Having and in Quest to Have, Extreme: Shakespeare’s rhetoric of time in sonnet 129’. Language and Style 14. 1-12.

Bartlett, John. 1894. A New and Complete Concordance or verbal Index to Words, Phrases, and Passages in the Dramatic Works of Shakespeare. New York and London.

[JH: replaced by Spevack 1968-1980.]  

Bates, Catherine. 1994. ‘Weaving and writing in Othello’. Shakespeare Survey 46. 51-60.

Bennet, Paule E. 1957. ‘The statistical measurement of a stylisic trait in Julius Caesar and As You Like It’. Shakespeare Quarterly 8. 33-50.

Benston, Alice N. 1989. ‘Freud reading Shakespeare reading Freud: the case of Macduff’. Style 23. 261-279.

Biese, Y.M. 1952. ‘Notes on the use of the ingressive auxiliaries in the works of William Shakespeare’. Neuphilologische Mitteilugen 53. 9-18. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:329-338).

Birch, David. 1988. ‘Expanding semantic options for reading Early Modern English’. In: David Birch and Michael O’Toole (eds.), Functions of Style. London: Francis Pinter. 157-168. 

[JH: sonnet 73.]  

Bjorklund, B. 1983. ‘If this be error: How shall the poem be translated?  Five modern views of Shakespeare’. Language and Style. 16. 3-22.

[JH: sonnet 116.]  

Blake, N.F. 1983. Shakespeare’s Language: An Introduction. London: Macmillan.

Blake, N.F. 1987. ‘Levels of language in Shakespeare’s King Henry IV part 1’. In: Manuel J. Gomez Lara and Juan Antonio Prieto Pablos (eds.), Stylistica: I Semana de Estudios Estilísticos. Seville: Alfar. 89-108. Repr. in Blake (1996:3-22).

Blake, N.F. 1988. ‘Negation in Shakespeare’. In: Graham Nixon and John Honey (eds.), An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London etc.: Routledge. 89-111. Repr. in Blake (1996:23-43).

Blake, N.F. 1989. ‘Standardizing Shakespeare’s non-standard language’. In: Joseph B. Trahern, Jr. (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the University of Tennessee Press. 57-81. Repr. in Blake (1996:44-65).

Blake, N.F. 1990a. ‘Shakespeare’s language: some recent studies and future directions’.  Shakespeare Jahrbuch (West). 61-77. Repr. in Blake (1996:66-82).

Blake, N.F. 1990b. ‘Modernizing language and editing Shakespeare’. Poetica (Tokyo) 34. 101-123. Repr. in Blake (1996:83-105).

Blake, N.F. 1991. ‘The language of the quarto and folio texts of King Lear’. In: Michio Kawai (ed.), Language and Tokyo: The Eihosha Press for The English Research Association of Hiroshima. 3-26. Repr. in Blake (1996:156-172).

Blake, N.F. 1992a. ‘Shakespeare, discourse and the teaching of English’. In: R. Ahrens and H. Antor (eds.), Text-Culture-Reception: Cross-Cultural Aspects of English Studies. Heidelberg: Winter. 431-445. Repr. in Blake (1996:106-12).

Blake, N.F. 1992b. ‘Why and What in Shakespeare’. In: Toshiyuki Takamiya and Richard Beadle (eds.), Chaucer to Shakespeare: Essays in Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. 179-193. Repr. in Blake (1996:121-138).

Blake, N.F. 1992c. ‘Early Modern English’. In C. Nocera Avila, N. Pantaleo, and D. Pezzini (eds.),  Early Modern English: Trends, Schena. 11-37.

Blake, N.F. 1993. ‘Shakespeare and discourse’. Stylistica: Revista Internacional de Estudios Estilísticos y Culturales 2/3. 126-133. Repr. in Blake (1996:139-155).

Blake, N.F. 1996. Essays on Shakespeare’s Language (1st series), Misterton: The Language Press.

Blake, N.F. 2000. ‘Excellent in Shakespeare’. In Dieter Kastovsky and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics (Trends in Linguistic Studies and Monographs 129). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-23.

Blake, N.F. 2002a. ‘On Shakespeare's informal language’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3/2. 179-204.

Blake, N.F. 2002b. A Grammar of Shakespeare’s Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

[JH: Considerably longer than Hope 2003; assumes much more linguistic knowledge.] 

Bland, D.S. 1951. ‘Shakespeare and the “ordinary” word’. Shakespeare Survey 4. 49-55. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:237-243).

Blayney, Peter. 1991, The First Folio of Shakespeare. Washington.

Blayney, Peter. 1997. ‘The publication of playbooks’. In: John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (eds.), A New History of Early English Drama. Columbia University Press. 383-422

Bohn, H.G. 1864. [Bibliography of all-known editions and translations of Shakespeare] 

Bonazza, Blaze O. 1966. Shakespeare’s Early Comedies: A Structural Analysis. The Hague: Mouton.

Booth, Stephen. 1969. An Essay on Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Yale University Press.

Booth, Stephen. 1977. Shakespeare’s Sonnets: Edited with Analytic Commentary. Yale University Press.

Bradbrook, Muriel. 1954. ‘Fifty years of criticism of Shakespeare’s style’. Shakespeare Survey 7. 1-11.

Bradley, A.C. 1929. ‘Monosyllabic lines and words’, from A Miscellany. Macmillan. 245-267. Repr. in Watson (1970:50-63).

[JH: contastive figures for lines made up of monosyllabic words in Shakespeare and various other writers.]

Bradley, E. and R. Thisted,.1976, ‘Estimating the number of unseen species.  “How many words did Shakespeare know?”’. Biometrika 63. 435-447.

Bradley, Henry. 1916. ‘Shakespeare’s English’. Shakespeare’s England. Vol. 2. Oxford. 539-574.

Brainerd, Barron. 1979. ‘Pronouns and genre in Shakespeare’s drama’. Computers and the Humanities 13.1. 3-16.

Brinton, L. 1985. ‘The iconic role of aspect in Shakespeare’s sonnet 129’. Poetics Today 6. 447-459.

Brook, G.L. 1976 The Language of Shakespeare. Deutsch: The Language Library.  

[JH: much good material, but very list-like (e.g. see ‘Introduction’, pp. 11-25); a good source of   examples, but for linguistic detail, see the relevant chapter in Barber (1997).]  

Brower, Reuben A. 1961. ‘Poetic and dramatic structure in versions and translations of Shakespeare’. Poetics: Proceedings of the First International Conference of Work-in-Progress Devoted to the Problems of Poetics. Warsaw. 655-674.

Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1989. ‘Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies’. Language in Society 18.2. 159-212.

Burchfield, Robert. 1987. ‘The bare infinitive in The Winter’s Tale’. In: Benhard Fabien and Kurt Tetzeli von Rosador (eds.), Shakespeare Text, Language, Criticism: Essays in Honour of Marvin Spevack. Hildesheim. 34-56.

Burton, Dolores. 1968. ‘“To Keep Decorum”: a stylistic analysis of Shakespeare’s Richard II and Antony and Cleopatra’, unpublished dissertation presented to Harvard University.

Burton, Dolores. 1973. Shakespeare’s grammatical style: a computer assisted analysis of “Richard II” and “Antony and Cleopatra”. Texas University Press. 

[JH: initial chapters discuss defining and analysing style, application of linguistics to literature.  Analysis rooted in sytemic grammar; reliable, and with many relevant points/identifications of problems; a lot of aesthetic assessment, despite claims to the contrary early on; useful bibliography.]  

Burton, Dolores. 1980. ‘Odds beyond arithmetic: comparative clauses in Coriolanus’. Style 14. 299-317.

Byrne, M. St Clare. 1964. ‘The foundations of Elizabethan language’. Shakespeare Survey 17. 223-239.

Byrne, Sister St. Geraldine. 1936. Shakespeare’s Use of the Pronoun of Address: Its Significance in Characterisation and Motivation [2nd ed. 1970]. New York: Haskell House.


Calvo, Clara. 1991. Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to Dramatic Dialogue. Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.

Calvo, Clara. 1992. ‘Pronouns of address and social negotiation in As You Like It’. Language and Literature 1. 5-27.

Calvo, Clara. 1994. ‘In defence of Celia: discourse analysis and women’s discourse in As You Like It’. In: Katie Wales (ed.), Feminist Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. 91-115.

Calvo, Clara. 1996. ‘Shakespeare and twentieth-century stylistics’. Paper presented to the World Shakespeare Congress, Los Angeles, April 1996 (Universidad de Murcia).

Carroll, William C. 1976.  The Great Feast of Language in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’. Princeton University Press.

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

[JH: nb. Barber (1997:140-141); see also Dobson (1968).]  

Charney, Maurice. 1969. Style in ‘Hamlet’. Princeton University Press.

Clemen, Wolfgang H. 1951. The Development of Shakespeare’s Imagery. Harvard University Press.

Cooper, M.M. 1981. ‘Implicature, Convention and The Taming of the Shrew’. Poetics 10. 1-14.

Coulthard, Malcolm. 1985. ‘Questions and answers in Othello’, An introduction to discourse analysis [2nd ed.]. Longman. 184-192.

Craik, George L. 1859a. The English of Shakespeare illustrated in a philological commentary on his “Julius Caesar” [2nd ed.]. London: Chapman and Hall.  

[JH: one of the earliest attempts to approach Shakespeare from a historical linguistic perspective, though the philology is intermittent; pre-dates Abbott, and in some respects its linguistics is more up-to-date than his (though the treatment of Shakespeare’s English is nowhere near as full); effectively an edition of JC, though not always treated as such by editors; unfortunately seems to accept Collier’s fraudulent Folio ‘corrections’ as genuine.]  

Craik, George L. 1859b. Outlines of the History of the English Language for the Use of the Junior Classes in Colleges and the Higher Classes in Schools [3rd ed.]. London: Chapman and Hall.

Crane, Milton. 1951. Shakespeare’s Prose. Chicago University Press.

Crystal, David. 1997a. ‘Weighing up Williamisms’. Globe (Friends of Shakespeare’s Globe Magazine). 9.

Crystal, David. 1997b. ‘What can this cock-pit hold?’. Globe (Friends of Shakespeare’s Globe Magazine). 19.

Crystal, David. 1997c. ‘New words? It all depends’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Autumn. 32.             

Crystal, David. 1997/8. ‘Names, names, names’, Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Winter. 12-13.

Crystal, David. 1998a. ‘Verbing’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Summer. 20-21.

Crystal, David. 1998b. ‘Those tricksy words’, Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Winter. 34-35.

Crystal, David. 1999a. ‘Our English is dead’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Spring. 28-29.

Crystal, David. 1999b. ‘Collocating auspiciously’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Summer. 34-35.

Crystal, David. 1999c. ‘O, but one word’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Autumn. 34-35.

Crystal, David. 1999d. ‘One word more’. Around the Globe (The Magazine of the International Shakespeare Globe Centre). Winter. 18-19. 

[JH: brief, but clear, and well-illustrated, articles on Shakespeare’s vocabulary; (1997c) on the difficulties of defining compounds (e.g. honest true/honest-true).]  

Cusack, Bridget. 1970. ‘Shakespeare and the tune of the time’. Shakespeare Survey 23. 1-12. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:23-34).

[JH: general survey of linguistic features of Shakespeare’s language - esp. syntax and lexis; brief topic-based bibliography; good starting point.]  


Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1994. ‘Are Shakespeare’s agent nouns different from Chaucer’s? - On the dynamics of a derivational sub-system’. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter. 45-58.

Dahl, Liisa. 1969. Nominal Style in the Shakespearean Soliloquy. Turku.

Dahl, Torsten. 1951. Linguistic Studies in Some Elizabethan Writings. I. An inquiry into aspects of the language of Thomas Deloney. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Danson, Lawrence. 1974. Tragic Alphabet: Shakespeare’s Drama of Language. Yale University Press.

Dent, Robert William. 1981. Shakespeare’s Proverbial Language. University of California Press.

Derks, Peter L. 1989. ‘Pun frequency and popularity of Shakespeare’s plays’. Empirical Studies of the Arts 7. 23-31.

Dodd, W.N. 1981. ‘Aspects of the relationship between “episode” and fabula in dramatic texts’. Lingua e Stile 16. 471-480.

[JH: All’s Well That Ends Well.]  

Donawerth, Jane. 1984. Shakespeare and the Sixteenth Century Study of Language. Urbana and Chicago.

Doran, Madeleine. 1970. ‘Iago’s “if”: An essay on the syntax of Othello’. In: Elmer M. Blistein (ed.), The Drama of the Renaissance: Essays for Leicester Bradner. Providence, Rhode Island. 69-99.

Doran, Madeleine. 1976. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language. University of Wisconsin Press.

Downes, William. 1988. ‘Discourse and drama: King Lear’s “question” to his daughters’. In: Willie Van Peer (ed.), The Taming of the Text: Explorations in Language, Literature and Culture.  Routledge. 225-257.

Draper, John W. 1949. ‘Patterns of style in Romeo and Juliet’. Studia Neophilologica 21. 195-210.

Draper, John W. 1961. ‘Stylistic contrast in Shakespeare’s plays’. West Virginia University Philological Papers 13. 11-24.

Draper, John W. 1964. ‘Prolepsis in Shakespeare’s tragedies’. Revista di Letterature Moderne e Comparate 17. 165-177.

Dunbar, G. 1971. ‘The verse rhythms of Antony and Cleopatra’. Style 5. 231-245.

Dunn, A.Thomas. 1957. Philip Massinger. The Man and the Playwright. London etc.: Nelson.

Düring, Hugo. 1891. ‘Über die Pronomina bei Spenser’. Halle a.S.


Eagleson, Robert D. 1970. ‘A linguistic, stylistic analysis of the non-finite verb clause in Shakespeare’s plays’ (unpublished University of London dissertation).

[JH: ref from Ando (1976).]  

Eagleson, Robert D. 1971. ‘“Propertied as all the tuned spheres”: aspects of Shakespeare’s language’. The Teaching of English 20. 4-15. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:133-144).

[JH: lexis.]

Edwards, Philip, Inga-Stina Ewbank and George Kirkpatrick Hunter (eds.), 1980, Shakespeare’s Styles: Essays in Honour of Kenneth Muir. Cambridge University Press.

Elam, Keir. 1982. ‘The words of Mercury and the songs of Apollo: the status of the linguistic sign in Love’s Labour’s Lost and other Shakespearean comedies’. Anali Istituto Universitario Orientale. Anglistica 25. 35-79.

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

Elam, Keir. 1992. ‘Early Modern syntax and late Shakespearean rhetoric’. In: C. Nocera Avila, N. Pantaleo, and D. Pezzini (eds.). Early Modern English: Trends, Schena. 61-80.

Emma, R.D. 1964. Milton’s Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.

Engel, Hubert. 1908. ‘Spensers Relativsatz’. Berlin.

Evans, B. Ifor. 1964. The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays. [3rd ed.]

Ewbank, Inga-Stina. 1971. ‘Shakespeare’s poetry’., In: K. Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds.), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge Univerisity Press. 99-115.

Ewbank, Inga-Stina. 1986. ‘Shakespeare and the arts of language’. In:  Stanley Wells (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge University Press. 49-66.


Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and Literature. Oxford: Blackwell.

[JH: see Chapter 2 for a clear treatment of Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter using a more linguistic approach than Wright (1988).]  

Fabian, Bernhard and Kurt Tetzeli von Rosador. 1987. Shakespeare, Text, Language, Criticism: Essays in Honour of Martin Spevack. Hildesheim.

Fanego, Teresa, 1992. Infinitive Complements in Shakespeare’s English. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Fish, Stanley. 1976. ‘How to do things with Austin and Searle: speech act theory and literary criticism’. Modern Language Notes 91. 983-1025.

[JH: Coriolanus.]  

Foster, Donald W. 1989. Elegy by W.S.: A University of Delaware Press.

Fowler, R. 1975. ‘Language and the reader: Shakespeare’s Sonnet 73’. In: R. Fowler (ed.), Style and Structure in Literature. Oxford: Blackwell. 79-122.

Franz, Wilhelm. 1898-1899. Shakespeare-Grammatik. Halle. 4th edition, 1939; Max Niemeyer Verlag: Halle/Saale.  

[JH: Partridge (1953a:xii) finds Franz more thorough than Abbott (1869), but claims that Franz is ‘wanting in matters where the original orthography is of importance’ (1953a:7).]  

Freeman, Donald C. 1993. ‘“According to my bond”: King Lear and re-cognition’. Language and Literature 2.1. 1-18.

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

Fries, Charles C. 1925. ‘Shakespearean Punctuation’, University of Michigan Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and Donne. Ann Arbor. 67-86.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1980. ‘The language of low-life characters in Love’s Labour’s Lost: A socio-stylistic interpretation of the language of comedy’. ERA (Bulletin of the English Research Association of Hiroshima), 1/1. 23-42.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1981. ‘Some types of parallelisms in The Two Gentlemen of Verona: with special reference to “Love” and “Friend(ship)”’. Hiroshima University Studies 41. 203-220. 

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1986. ‘The language of Bottom: From external to internal characterization’. Hiroshima University Studies 45. 299-317.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1988. ‘The use of Elizabethan colloquial English in The Merry Wives of Windsor’. Ohtani Women’s University Studies in English Language and Literature 15. 57-95.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1990. ‘Socio-stylistic modes of emphasis in Citizen Comedy’. In: Studies for Professor Koso Ogoshi. Kyoto: Apollon-sha. 184-204.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1991. ‘Colloquial means of emphasis and character in As You Like It’. Ohtani Women’s University Studies in English Language and Literature 18. 83-103.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1991. ‘Colloquial means of emphasis in the Falstaff Plays: A socio-stylistic approach’. In: Language and Style in English Literature: Essays in Honour of Michio Masui (Tokyo: Eihô-sha). 502-521.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1995. ‘Well as a Discourse Marker in The Merry Wives of Windsor’. Ohtani Women’s University Studies in English Language and Literature 22. 23-47.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1997. Essays on Shakespeare’s Language: Language, Discourse and Text. Kyoto: Apollon-sha.

Fuami, Shigenobu. 1998. ‘Well as a Discourse Marker in Much Ado About Nothing’. Ohtani Women’s University Studies in English Language and Literature 25. 1-22.


Garner, Bryan A. 1982. ‘Shakespeare’s Latinate Neologisms’. Shakespeare Studies 15. 149-170. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:207-228)

[JH: lexis.]  

Garner, Bryan A. 1983. ‘Latin-Saxon hybrids in Shakespeare and the Bible’. Studies in the Humanities 10. 39-44. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:229-234).

[JH: lexis.]

Garner, B. L. 1985. ‘Latinate past participles as metrical and tonal variants in Shakespeare’. Language and Style 18. 242-247.

Ghose, Zulfikar. 1978. Hamlet, Prufrock and Language. Macmillan.

Gibinska, Marta. 1987. The Functioning of Language in Shakespeare’s Plays: A Pragma-Dramatic Approach. Krakow.

Gilbert, A.J. 1979a. ‘Techniques of focus in Shakespeare’s Sonnets’. Language and Style 12. 245-267.

Gilbert, A.J. 1997. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Speech. Edward Mellen Press.  

[JH: Gricean approach.]  

Gillet, Peter J. 1974. ‘Me, U, and non-U: class connotations of two Shakespearean idioms’. Shakespeare Quarterly 25.3. 297-309. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:117-29).

Goldsmith, U.K. 1950. ‘“Words out of a hat?” Alliteration and assonance in Sakespeare’s Sonnets’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49. 33-48.

Gordon, G. 1928. Shakespeare’s English. Society for Pure English, XXIV.

Gordon, G. 1945. ‘Shakespeare’s English’. Shakespearian Comedy. Oxford.

Grainger, J.M. 1907. Studies in the Syntax of the King James , published as vol. 2 of Studies in Philology, The Philological Club of the University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill: The University Press.

[JH: ref. from Ando (1976): BL Ac.2685k Studies in Philology vol. 1-5 1906-10.]  

de Grazia, Margreta. 1978. ‘Shakespeare’s view of language: an historical perspective’. Shakespeare Quarterly 29. 374-388. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:473-87).

de Grazia, Margreta. 1989. ‘The motive for interiority: Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Hamlet’. Style. 23. 430-444.

Green, L.D. 1984. ‘“We’ll dress him up in voices”: The rhetoric of disjunction in Troilus and Cressida’. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70. 23-40.

Gregory, Michael. 1982. ‘Hamlet’s voice: aspects of text formation and cohesion in a soliloquy’. Forum Linguisticum 7. 107-122.

Gurr, Andrew. 1982. ‘You and thou in Shakespeare’s Sonnets’. Essays in Criticism 32. 9-25.


Hamilton, Donna. 1989. ‘Defiguring Virgil in The Tempest’. Style 23. 352-373.

Hancher, M. 1980. ‘Understanding poetic speech acts’. In: Marvin K.L. Ching, Michael C. Haley and Ronald F. Lunsford (eds.),  Linguistic Perspectives on Literature. London: Routledge. 295-304. 

[JH: sonnet 19.]

Hart, A. 1943a. ‘Vocabularies of Shakespeare’s plays’. Review of English Studies 19. 128-140.

Hart, A. 1943b. ‘The growth of Shakespeare’s vocabulary’. Review of English Studies 19. 242-254.

Hawkes, Terence. 1969. ‘The word against the word: the role of language in Richard II’. Language and Style 2. 296-322.

Hawkes, Terence. 1986. ‘Shakespeare and new critical approaches’. In: Stanley Wells (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge University Press. 287-302.

Helgerson, Richard. 1992. Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. Chicago University Press.

Hodge R.I.V. and Gunther Kress. 1982. ‘The semiotics of love and power: King Lear and a new stylistics’. Southern Review 15. 143-156.

Hoey M.P. and E.O. Winter. 1981. ‘Believe me for mine honour’. Language and Style 14. 315-339. 

[JH: Julius Caesar.]  

Hollander, John. 1957. ‘Musica Mundana and Twelfth Night. In: Northrop Frye (ed.), Sound and Poetry: English Institute Essays 1956. 55-82.

Hope, Jonathan. 1994. The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge University Press.

Hope, Jonathan. 1999. ‘Shakespeare’s “Natiue English”’. In: David Scott Kastan (ed.), A Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell. 239-255.

Hope, Jonathan. 2003. Shakespeare’s Grammar. Thomson: The Arden Shakespeare.

[JH: replacement for Abbott (1870): written without assuming linguistic knowledge, intended to be user-friendly - thus shorter and not as densely packed as Blake (2002) - but much more expensive (ask the publisher ...).]  

Houston, John Porter. 1988. Shakespeare’s Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax. Baton Rouge and London.

[JH: puts the emphasis on contemporary rhetoric - and attacks Burton (1973) for ignoring it (p. ix); tone often crabby and sour; restricts comment to blank verse; focusses on word order in opening chapter - interestingly notes an increase in SOV in Shakespeare’s later plays, BUT dismissal of ‘linguists’ (for some reason, a derogatory term for H.), and playing fast and loose with IE word order (p. 2), do not encourage confidence in judgement or speculations; interesting material, but needs to be used with care.]  

Howard-Hill, Trevor H. 1964. ‘Computer analysis of Shakespearean texts’. Shakespeare Newsletter 14. 79.

Howard-Hill, Trevor H. 1964. ‘Computer analysis of Shakespearean texts: II’. Shakespeare Newsletter 16. 7.

Howarth, Herbert. 1965. ‘Metre and emphasis: a conservative note’. In: Gordon Ross Smith (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare. 211-227.

Hudson, Kenneth. 1970. ‘Shakespeare’s use of colloquial language’. Shakespeare Survey 23. 39-48.

Hulme, Hilda M. 1958. ‘The spoken language and the dramatic text: Some notes on the interpretation of Shakespeare’s language’. Shakespeare Quarterly 9. 379-386. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:146-152).

[JH: lexis; material expanded in Hulme (1962).]  

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

Hulme, Hilda M. 1964. ‘Shakespeare’s language’. In: J. Sutherland and J. Hurtsfield (eds), Shakespeare’s World. Edward Arnold. 136-155.

Hussey, Stanley S. 1982. The Literary Language of Shakespeare. Longman.


Jakobson Roman and L.G. Jones. 1970. Shakespeare’s Verbal Art in ‘Th’Expence of Spirit’. Mouton.

[JH: sonnet 129.]

Jespersen, Otto 1908 (rev. 1948). ‘Shakespeare and the language of poetry’. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Garden City. 224-248.

[JH: specifically on vocabulary - a rich source of examples and lists; reprinted in Watson (1970).]  

Johansen,J.D.  1972. ‘The structure of conflicting cosmologies in King Lear’. Poetics 6. 84-127.

G. Jones. 1981. ‘You, thou, he or she? The master-mistress in Shakespearean and Elizabethan sonnet sequences’. Cahiers Elisabethains 19. 73-84

Joseph, Sister Miriam C.S.C. 1947. Shakespeare’s Use of the Arts of Language. New York.


Kakietek, Piotr. 1970. ‘May and might in Shakespeare’s English’. Linguistics 64. 27-35. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:319-328).

Kakietek, Piotr. 1976. ‘The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 8. 45-53. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:309-317).

Frank Kermode, 2000, Shakespeare’s language. Penguin.

Kielkiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka. 1985. ‘Sociolinguistics and the computer: pronominal address in Shakespeare’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29. 49-56. 

[JH: As You Like It.]  

Kintgen, E.R. 1983. The Perception of Poetry. Indiana University Press. 

[JH: sonnet 94.]  

Koelb, Clayton. 1979. ‘The iambic pentameter revisited’. Neophilologus 63. 321-329. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:433-441).

Kökeritz, Helge. 1953. Shakespeare’s Pronunciation. Yale University Press.  

[JH: but nb. Barber (1997:140-141); see also Dobson (1968).]  

Kopytko, Roman. 1993. Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uam.  

Kopytko, Roman. 1995. ‘Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays’. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 515-540.

Krieger, Murray. 1964. A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Modern Poetics. Princeton University Press.  


Lalu, I. 1977. ‘Balance and game in the study of theatre’. Poetics 6. 339-350. 

[JH: Richard III.]  

Leith, Dick. 1984. ‘Tudor London: sociolinguistic stratification and linguistic change’. MALS Journal (Midlands Association of Linguistic Studies) 9. 47-64.

Levin, Richard. 1965. ‘Sonnet CXXIX as “Dramatic Poem”’. Shakespeare Quarterly 16. 175-181.

Levin, Samuel R. 1962. Linguistic Structures in Poetry. Mouton.

[JH: sonnet 30.]  

Liggins E.M. and H.W. Piper. 1961. ‘Sound and sense in a Shakespeare Sonnet’. Langue et littérature: Actes du VIII Congrès de la Fédération Internationale des Langues et Littératures Modernes. Paris: Bibliothéque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de L’Université de Liége 161. 417.

Ludwig, J.B. 1974. ‘Shakespearean decorum: An essay on The Winter’s Tale’. Style 8. 365-404.


Mackie, W.S. 1936. ‘Shakespeare’s English: and how far it can be investigated with the help of the “New English Dictionary”’. Modern Language Review 31. 1-10.

Magnusson, A. Lynne. 1992. ‘The rhetoric of politeness and Henry VIII’. Shakespeare Quarterly 43. 391-409.

Magnusson, A. Lynne. 1999. Shakespeare and Social Dialogue, Dramatic Language and Elizabethan Letters. Cambridge University Press.

Mahood, M.M. 1957. Shakespeare’s Wordplay. London: Methuen.

Marcus, Leah. 1992. ‘Renaissance/Early Modern Studies’. In: Stephen Greenblatt and Giles Gunn (eds.), Redrawing the Boundaries. MLA.

Matthews, William. 1964. ‘Language in Love’s Labour’s Lost’. Essays and Studies.  1-11. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:499-509).

Maurer, Margaret. 1989. ‘Figure, place, and the end of The Two Gentlemen of Verona’. Style 23. 405-429.

Maxwell, J.C. 1950. ‘Peele and Shakespeare: a stylometric test’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49. 557-561.

Mazzon, Gabriella. 1992. ‘Shakespearean “thou” and “you” revisited, or socio-affective networks on stage’. In: C. Nocera Avila, N. Pantaleo, and D. Pezzini (eds.), Early Modern English: Trends, Schena. 121-136.

McIntosh, Angus. 1963. ‘As You Like It: a grammatical clue to character’. Review of English Literature 4.2. 68-81.

McIntosh, Angus and Colin Williamson. 1963, ‘King Lear, Act I, Scene i: A stylistic note’. Review of English Studies n.s. 14. 54-58.

McKenzie, D.F. 1959. ‘Shakespearean punctuation: A new beginning’. Review of English Studies 10. 361-370. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:445-454).

Milward, Celia. 1966. ‘Pronominal case in Shakespearean imperatives’. Language 42. 10-7. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:301-308).

Mizener, Arthur. 1940. ‘The structure of figurative language in Shakespeare’s sonnets’. The Southern Review 5. 730-747.

Moss, L. 1987. ‘Rhetorical addition in King Lear’. Language and Style 20. 16-29.

Mowat, Barbara. 1989. ‘“A local habitation and a name”: Shakespeare’s text as construct’. Style 23. 335-351.

Muir, Kenneth. 1965. ‘Shakespeare’s imagery - then and now’. Shakespeare Survey 18. 46-57.

Mulholland, Joan. 1967. ‘“Thou” and “You” in Shakespeare: A study in the second person pronoun’. English Studies 48. 1-9 or 34-43, 163. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:153-161).

Musgrove, S. 1981. ‘Thieves’ cant in King Lear’. English Studies 62.1. 5-13. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:245-253).


Nadin, M. 1977. ‘Text and character’. Poetics 6. 255-286. 

[JH: Hamlet.]  

Nameri, Dorothy E. 1988. ‘Shakespeare’s use of language as exemplified in King Lear’. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 14. 217-222.

Nash, Walter. 1989. ‘Changing the guard at Elsinore’. In: Ronald Carter and Paul Simpson (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. Unwin Hyman. 23-42.

Neuhaus, H. Joachim. 1989. ‘The Shakespeare Dictionary Database’. ICAME Journal 13. 3-11.

Neuhaus, H. Joachim and Marvin Spevack. 1989. ‘Satirical devices in Shakespeare’. In: J.E. Peters and T.M. Stein (eds.), Scholastic Midwifery: Studien zum Satirischen in der Englischen Literatur 1600-1800. 1-6.

Nevo, Ruth. 1987. Shakespeare’s Other Language.London: Methuen.

Nowottny, W.M.T. 1960. ‘Some aspects of the style of Lear’, Shakespeare Survey 13. 49-57.


Omaya, Toshiko. 1958. ‘The language of Feste, the clown’. In: Krazo Araki et al. (eds.), Studies in English Grammar and Linguistics: A Miscellany in Honour of Takanobu Otsuka

Oyama, Toshiko. 1975. Shakespeare’s World of Words. Tokyo.

Onions, C.T. 1919. A Shakespeare Glossary. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

Orkin, Martin. 1978. ‘“The poor cat’s adage” and other Shakespearean proverbs in Elizabethan grammar-school education’. Studies of Africa 21. 79-88. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:489-98). 


Partridge, A.C. 1947. Shakespeare’s Bawdy. Routledge.

Partridge, A.C. 1953. The Accidence of Ben Jonson’s Plays, Masques and Entertainments, with an Appendix of Comparable Uses in Shakespeare. Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes.

[JH: ‘Accidence’ means approximately morphology, though it is not well or consistently defined; much useful material, though old fashioned in terminology, and marred by crude prescriptivism at times; some historical explanations rely too much on OE usages to be  convincing.]

Partridge, A.C. 1953. Studies in the Syntax of Ben Jonson’s Plays.  Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes.

[JH: companion volume to Partridge (1953), again with much on Shakespeare as well as Jonson; comments to that apply here.]

Partridge, A.C. 1964. Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan drama: A Study of Colloquial Contractions, Elision, Prosody and Punctuation. London: Edward Arnold.

Partridge, A.C. 1971. The Language of Renaissance Poetry: Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton. London: André Deutsch.

Partridge, A.C. 1976. A Substantive Grammar of Shakespeare’s Nondramatic texts. Charlottesville: published for the Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia by the University Press of Virginia.

Partridge, A.C. 1979. ‘Shakespeare’s English: A bibliographical survey’. Poetica (Tokyo) 11. 46-79.

Petit, J.P. 1980. ‘A note on performatives in Richard II’. In: J.P. Petit (ed.), Discourse and Style II. Lyon: L’Hermesp. 105-107.

Prager, Leonard. 1966. ‘The language of Shakespeare’s low characters: An introductory study’. Dissertations Abstracts 27. 751A-772A.

Porter, Joseph A. 1979. The Drama of Speech Acts: Shakespeare’s Lancastrian tetralogy. Berkeley.

Pugliatti, Paola. 1992. ‘Shakespeare’s names for Rebellion’. In: C. Nocera Avila, N. Pantaleo, and D. Pezzini (eds), Early Modern English: Trends, Forms and Texts. Schena. 81-93.


Quirk, Randolph. 1971. ‘Shakespeare and the English language’. In: Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds.), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge: University Press. 67-82. Repr., with minor alterations, in Randolph Quirk (1974), The Linguist and the English Language, Edward Arnold; the 1974 version repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987: 3-21).  


Carol Replogle. 1973. ‘Shakespeare’s salutations: A study in stylistic etiquette’. Studies in Philology 70. 172-86. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:101-115).

Richards, I.A. 1970. ‘Jakobson’s Shakespeare: The subliminal structures of a sonnet’. Times Literary Supplement, May 28th. 589-590.

Rissanen, Matti. 1975. ‘“Strange and Inkhorne Tearmes”: Loan-words as style markers in the prose of Edward Hall, Thomas Elyot, Thomas More and Roger Ascham’. In: Håkan Ringbom et al. (eds.), Style and text.  Studies presented to Nils Erik Enkvist. Stockholmp. 250-262. Repr. in Mats Rydén, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Merja Kytö (eds.) (1998),  Reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 279-293.

Ritzenfeldt, Emil. 1889. ‘Der Gebrauch des Pronomens, Atikels u. Verbs bei Thomas Kyd im Vergleich zu dem Gebrauch bei Shakespeare’. Kiel.

Rubinstein, Frankie. 1984. A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and their Significance. London: Macmillan.

Rudanko, Juhani. 1993. Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens. University Presses of America.

[JH: rev. 1995 Shakespeare Bulletin.]

Ryan, Kiernan. 1988. ‘Romeo and Juliet: The language of tragedy’. In: Willie Van Peer (ed.), The  taming of the text: explorations in language, literature and culture. Routledge. 106-121.

Rydén, Mats. 1978. Shakespearean Plant Names: Identifications and Interpretations. Stockholm Studies in English 43. Almqvist and Wiksell.

Rydén, Mats, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Merja Kytö (eds.). 1998. A Reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.


Salmon, Vivian. 1965. ‘Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearean English’. Transactions of the Philological Society 1965. 105-140. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:265-300).

Salmon, Vivian. 1967. ‘Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays’. Leeds Studies in English, n.s. 1. 37-70. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:37-70).

[JH: full, linguistically sophisticated, survey.]

Salmon, Vivian. 1970. ‘Some functions of Shakespearean word-formation’. Shakespeare Survey 23. 13-26. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:193-206).

[JH: lexis.]

Salmon, Vivian. 1986. ‘The spelling and punctuation of Shakespeare’s time’. In: Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (eds.), William Shakespeare:The Complete Works (Original-spelling edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press. xlii-lvi.

[JH: very good introduction to the development of spelling and punctuation in printed texts, and the influence of the process of printing on spelling and punctuation (with illustrations); recommended introduction for students not used to reading unmodernised texts.]

Salmon, Vivian. 1987. ‘Introduction’. In: Salmon and Burness (1987:xiii-xxii).

[JH: introduces and summarises essays in volume; some comment on the then state of study of  Shakespeare’s language; brief bibliography.] 

Salmon, Vivian and Edwina Burness (eds.). 1987. A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, ser. III, 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[JH: photographic reprint of various papers published on Shakespeare’s dramatic language; generally confined to articles published 1965-85; covers syntax, lexis, rhetoric, metre, punctuation, but not phonology.]

Schäfer, Jürgen. 1973. Shakespeares Stil. Athenäum: Frankfurt.

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

[JH: important corrective to attempts to use OED as an authority on first use, Shakespearean coinages etc.: emphasises that OED first datings are indicative only, and that Shakespeare was read more thoroughly than other EMod writers, so tends to appear as first user more often, even when other writers can be shown to have used a word before Shakespeare.]

Schalkwyk, David. 2002. Speech and Performance in Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Plays. Cambridge University Press.  

[JH: on performativity in the Sonnets, also good on names and naming.]

Scheler, Manfred. 1982. Shakespeares Englisch: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Einführung. Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik 12. Berlin.

Scheman, Naomi. 1989. ‘From Hamlet to Maggie Verver: the history and politics of the knowing subject’. Poetics 18. 449-469.

Schlauch, Margaret. 1965. ‘The social background of Shakespeare’s malapropisms’. Poland’s Homage to Shakespeare. 203-231. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:71-99).

Schmidt, Alexander. 1874-1875. Shakespeare-Lexicon (2 Vols.). Berlin. Revised by G. Sarrazin, Berlin (1923).

Schneider, Edgar. 1994. ‘You that be not able to consyder thys order of things: Variability and change in the semantics and syntax of a mental verb in Early Modern English’. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter. 379-402.

Schoenbaum, Samuel. 1990. ‘Shakespeare’s English’. Shakespeare: His Life, his Language, his Theater. Signet. 24-39.

Sell, Roger D. 1975. ‘Two types of style contrast in King Lear: A literary-critical appraisal’. In: Hakam Ringbom (ed.), Style and Text: Studies Presented to Nils Erik Enkvist. 158-171.

Sharnoubi, S. 1979. ‘The structure and function of the interrogative sentence in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Catholic University of America.

Shirley, Frances Ann. 1979. Swearing and Perjury in Shakespeare’s Plays. London: Allen and Unwin.

Short, M.H. 1981. ‘Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama’. Applied Linguistics 2.2. 180-202.

Siemon, James R. 2002. Word against Word: Shakespearean Utterance. Massachusetts University Press.

[JH: scholarly, but heavy, application of Bakhtin, with Richard II to the fore.  Much literary interest, but little real engagement with language.]

Simpson, Percy. 1911. Shakespearean Punctuation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Singh, Rajendra. 1973. ‘Multiple negation in Shakespeare’. Journal of English Linguistics 7. 50-56. Repr. with post-script, in Salmon and Burness (1987:339-45).

Skinner, B.F. 1939. ‘The alliteration in Shakespeare’s sonnets: a study in literary behaviour’. The Psychological Record 3. 186-92.

Skinner, B.F. 1961. ‘A quantitative analysis of certain types of sound-patterning in poetry’. The American Journal of Psychology 54. 64-79.

Smith, C. Alphonso. 1896. ‘Shakespeare’s present indicative s-endings with plural subjects’. Publications of the Modern Language Association IV. n.s.

[JH: ref. from L.R. Wilson (1906).]

Smith, Bruce R. 1999. The Acoustic World of Early Modern England: Attending to the O-factor. Chicago University Press.

[JH: ingenious and engaging attempt to recreate the acoustic landscape of Early Modern England - ultimately smoke and mirrors because of a lack of technical detail on eg. phonology, but fun along the way.]

Smith, Gordon Ross. 1963. A Classified Shakespeare Bibliography, 1936-1958. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Smithers, G.V. 1970. ‘Guide-lines for interpreting the uses of the suffix ‘-ed’ in Shakespeare’s English’. Shakespeare Survey 23. 27-37.

Spevack, Marvin. 1968-80. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare (9 Vols.). Hildersheim.

Spevack, Marvin. 1985. ‘Shakespeare’s language’. In: John F. Andrews (ed.), William Shakespeare: His World, his Work, his Influence. Vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 343-361.

[JH: essay-length introduction to Shakespeare’s language; strong on vocabulary and morphology; weak on syntax; bibliography.]

Spurgeon, Caroline. 1931. ‘Shakespeare’s iterative imagery’. Proceedings of the British Academy 17. 147-178.

Spurgeon, Caroline. 1935. Shakespeare’s imagery and what it tells us. Cambridge.

Stein, Dieter. 1974. Grammatik und Variation von Flexionsformen in der Sprache des Shakespeare Corpus. Munich.

Sugden, Herbert W. 1936. The Grammar of Spenser’s Faerie Queene. Language Dissertations Published by the Linguistic Society of America 22. Pennsylvania: Linguistic Society of America.

[JH: full, well-referenced, some quantitive work (restricted to Book 1) - some very interesting detail.]

Sutherland, J.R. 1933. ‘Shakespeare’s imitators in the eighteenth century’. Modern Language Review 28.1. 25.

Sutherland, James. 1964. ‘How the characters talk’, In: James Sutherland and Joel Hurstfield (eds.), Shakespeare’s World. London: Edward Arnold. 116-35.  


Tanselle, G. Thomas and  Florence W. Dunbar. 1962. ‘Legal language in Coriolanus’. Shakespeare Quarterly 13. 231-38. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:255-62).

Tarlinskaja, M. and L.K. Coachman. 1986. ‘Text-theme-text: semantic correlation between thematically linked poems’. Language and Style 19. 338-67.

[JH: sonnets 1, 2, 17, 19, 60, 63, 65.]

Tarlinskaja, M. 1987. ‘Comparing semantic planes of poetic texts’. Poetics 16. 25-33.

[JH: sonnet 33.]

Taylor, Estelle W. 1972. ‘Shakespeare’s use of S endings of the verbs to do and to have in the first folio’. CLA Journal 16. 214-31. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:371-88).

[JH: see also Stein 1987.]                        

Taylor, Estelle W. 1976. ‘Shakespeare’s use of  ETH and ES endings of verbs in the first folio’. CLA Journal XIX 4. 437-57. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:349-69).

[JH: see also Stein 1987.]  

Teodorescu-Brinzeu, P. 1977. ‘A systemic approach to the theatre’. Poetics 6. 351-74.

[JH: Othello.]

Treip, Mindele. 1970. Milton’s Punctuation and Changing English Usage 1582-1676. London: Methuen.

Trousdale, Marion. 1982. Shakespeare and the Rhetoricians. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.


Ukaji, Masatomo. 1977. ‘Tag questions in Shakespeare’, Studies in English Linguistics 5. 265-80.  

Ukaji, Masatomo. 1978. Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

[IT: relates particularly to the language of Shakespeare.]

Ukaji, Masatomo. 1979. ‘Multiple negation in Shakespeare’, Studies in English Linguistics 7. 100-17.  

Ukaji, Masatomo. 2003. ‘Subject zero relatives in Early Modern English’. In: Masatomo Ukaji, Masayuki Ike-Uchi and Yoshiki Nishimura (eds.), Current Issues in English Linguistics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 248-277.

[IT: based on an analysis of twenty-two plays by Shakespeare, three plays by Ben Jonson and one of Nashe's novels.]

Urbonya, K.R. 1984. ‘Shakespeare’s sonnet 29: an aspectual analysis’, Language and Style 17. 161-74.  


van der Meer, H. J. 1929. Main Facts Concerning the Syntax of Mandeville’s Travels. Utrecht: Kemink.

Vendler, Helen. 1973. ‘Jakobson, Richards, and Shakespeare’s sonnet CXXIX’. In: Reuben Brower, Helen Vendler and John Hollander (eds.), I.A. Richards: Essays in his Honour. Oxford University Press. 179-98.

Vickers, Brian. 1968a. The Artistry of Shakespeare’s Prose. London: Methuen.

Vickers, Brian. 1968b. ‘King Lear and Renaissance paradoxes’. Modern Language Review 63. 305-15.

Vickers, Brian. 1970. Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry. London: Macmillan.

Vickers, Brian. 1971. ‘Shakespeare’s use of rhetoric’. In: Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds.), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge University Press. 83-98. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:391-406).

Vickers, Brian. 1986. ‘Rites of passage in Shakespeare’s prose’, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespare-Geselschaft West. 45-46.

Visser, F.Th. 1944-45. Review of Franz (1939). English Studies 26. 13-30.


Wales, Kathleen. 1978. ‘An aspect of Shakespeare’s dynamic language: a note on the interpretation of King Lear III. vii. 113: “He childed as I father’d!”’. English Studies 59. 395-404. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:181-90).

Wales, Kathleen. 1985. ‘Generic “your” in Elizabethan Drama: the rise and fall of a pronominal usage’. English Studies 66. 7-24.

Warren, Michael J. 1977. ‘Repunctuation as interpretation in editions of Shakespeare’. English Literary Renaissance 7. 155-69. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:455-69).

Watson, George (ed.). 1970. Literary English since Shakespeare. Oxford University Press.

[JH: despite the title, reprints essays on Shakespeare [ Bradley 1929; Jespersen 1948], late C16 and C17th prose [Croll 1929], Jonson’s prose [Barish 1960].]

Werstine, Paul. 1990. ‘Narratives about printed Shakespearean texts: “Foul Papers” and “Bad Quartos”’. Shakespeare Quarterly. 65-86.

Widdowson, H. 1982. ‘Othello in person’. In: Ronald Carter (ed.), Language and and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Stylistics London: Allen and Unwin. 41-52.

Wikberg, Kay. 1975. Yes-No questions and answers in Shakespeare’s plays: a study in text linguistics. Acta Academiae Åboensis Ser. A Humaniora 51.1 (Åbo).

Wilbern, David. 1997. Poetic Will: Shakespeare and the Play of Language. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Willcock, Gladys D. 1934.‘ Shakespeare as critic of language’. Shakespeare Association Papers 18.

Willcock, Gladys D. 1934. ‘Shakespeare and Elizabethan English’. In: H. Granville-Barker and G.B. Harrison (eds.), A Companion to Shakespeare Studies. 117-136.

[JH: dated in some respects (eg. a romanticised view of Elizabethan English’s qualities), but stresses importance of education, mixing of classical and vernacular traditions, likely aural skills of audience - still valuable, if used carefully.]

Willcock, Gladys D. 1943. ‘Shakespeare and rhetoric’, Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association 29. 50-61.

Willcock, Gladys D. 1954a. ‘Shakespeare and Elizabethan English’, Shakespeare Survey 7. 12-24.

Willcock, Gladys D. 1954b. ‘Language and poetry in Shakespeare’s early plays’. Proceedings of the British Academy 40. 103-17.

Williams, Gordon. 1997. A Glossary of Shakespeare's Sexual Language. London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone.

Williams, Joseph M. 1992. ‘“O!  When Degree is Shak’d”:  sixteenth-century anticipations of some modern attitudes toward usage’. In: Tim  William Machan and Charles T. Scott (eds.), English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. 69-101.

Wilson, F.P. 1941. ‘Shakespeare and the diction of common life’, Proceedings of the British Academy 27. 167-97.

Wilson, R. Rawdon. 1989. ‘Narrative reflexivity in Shakespeare’, Poetics Today 10. 771-91.

Wright, George T. 1981. ‘Hendiadys and Hamlet’. PMLA. 168-193. Repr. in Salmon and Burness (1987:407-432).

Wright, George T. 1988. Shakespeare’s Metrical Art. University of California Press.  

[JH: the standard work on Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter - clear, and alive to the possibility of various readings of the metre of lines - see also Fabb (1997) for a more rigorous linguistic approach to metre.]


Yearling, E.M. 1982. ‘Language, theme and character in Twelfth Night’. Shakespeare Survey 35. 79-86.


Zarojanu, T.C. 1988. ‘A methodical approach to theatre’. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 33. 179-184.

Zitner, Sheldon P. 1974. ‘King Lear and its language’. In: Rosalie L. Colie and F.T. Flahiff (eds.), Some Facets of King Lear: Essays in Prismatic Toronto University Press. 3-22.


(for additions, contact Jonathan Hope