Methods

Craig, Hugh; Kinney, Arthur F.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511605437.003

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Stylistic and stylometric studies of Shakespeare (e.g. Craig and Kinney, 2009) have shown that certain aspects of his language and poetics developed considerably over the 20 years or more of his writing career. Interestingly, this development did not include a marked shift away from multiple toward single negation; he was found to be still utilising it liberally in plays as late as Cymbeline (7 MN uses out of 11 contexts), The Tempest (6 MN uses out of 11 contexts) and The Winter's Tale (20 MN uses out of 28 contexts).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Native woodnotes wild’: Shakespeare, his contemporaries, and the syntax of negation

Ingham

2023

Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper builds on findings on variation in Elizabethan grammar, analysing the syntax of negation in a large number of Shakespearean stage dramas and those of his contemporaries. It shows that Shakespeare differed substantially from them grammatically and stylistically. His contemporaries most often adhered to the emerging standard pattern of avoiding Subject-Verb syntax and multiple negation, whereas Shakespeare made much greater use of it, especially in coordinate contexts. In other contexts, use of multiple negation by other authors was usually for characterological purposes, whereas in Shakespeare it is employed as a stylistic resource regardless of the character’s social standing. These findings are interpreted against the background of sociolinguistic research on diachronic English syntax, showing that higher-status individuals led the change away from multiple negation. The differing outcomes are related to Shakespeare’s provincial background and non-participation in a university milieu, distinguishing him from the ‘golden triangle’ background of his contemporary dramatists.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Native woodnotes wild’: Shakespeare, his contemporaries, and the syntax of negation

Ingham

2023

Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The numerous and complex features in this study also generate a complicated classification scheme, and its advantages over simpler categorization approaches are not clearly revealed in a definitive manner. A thorough study on the dispute ''Molie`re vs. Corneille'' was recently published (Labbe´, 2009), and similar questions were also raised about some of Shakespeare's works (Craig & Kinney, 2009).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most important studies applicable here (Burrows, 1992;Binonga & Smith, 1999;Craig & Kinney, 2009) are those related to PCA (Lebart et al, 1998). In this case new composite features are generated as a linear combination of given terms, which could then be applied to represent documents as points within a new space.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorship Attribution: A Comparative Study of Three Text Corpora and Three Languages

Savoy

2012

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first objective of this paper is carry out three experiments intended to evaluate authorship attribution methods based on three test-collections available in three different languages (English, French, and German). In the first we represent and categorize 52 text excerpts written by nine authors and taken from 19th century English novels. In the second we work with 44 segments from French novels written by eleven authors, mostly from the 19th century. In the third we extract 59 German text excerpts from novels published mainly during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, written by 15 authors. The second objective is to analyse performance differences obtained when using word types or lemmas as text representations, and the third objective is to evaluate three authorship attribution schemes, the first of which uses principal component analysis (PCA), the second applies the Delta approach, and the third corresponds to a new authorship attribution method based on specific vocabulary. This concept is computed for a given text (or author profile) and then compared with the entire corpus. Based on this information, we show how a distance measure can be derived and by means of the nearest neighbor approach we suggest a simple and efficient authorship attribution scheme. Based on three test collections and using either word types or lemmas as features, we demonstrate that the suggested classification scheme performs better than the PCA method, and slightly better than the Delta approach.

show abstract

“…Numerous studies of Shakespeare have proceeded in this kind of tradition. Craig and Kinney (2009), for instance, is a collection of illuminating and sophisticated studies in which computer analyses are designed to identify and compare Shakespeare’s and other writers’ styles. However, what is missing is the broader contribution to stylistics, as most studies in this area focus only on authorial style.…”

Section: Shakespeare’s Language and The Digital Revolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shakespeare’s language: Styles and meanings via the computer

Culpeper

Archer

2020

Language and Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

s language and the digital revolution We celebrate Shakespeare because of what he created in language. It is strange then that a trip to any library will find shelves groaning with the vast quantity of literary criticism, but relatively few volumes on his language. This is not to say that there is no scholarship of significance on Shakespeare's language. Aside from some major, and indeed recent, works on grammar (e.g., Blake 2002), lexis (Crystal and Crystal 2002), and phonology (e.g., Crystal 2016), as well as collections of note (e.g., Salmon and Burgess 1987; Adamson 2001) and a steady flow of articles, there is a considerable quantity of insightful linguistic commentary in the form of footnotes in edited editions. The problem with the latter is that it does not amount to a coherent research programme. Moreover, it can also be very difficult to retrieve a specific insight tucked away in a footnote. A more general problem with scholarship relating to Shakespeare's language is its split personality, encompassing as it does both linguistic and literary approaches. Consider some of the topics mentioned in the chapter titles of the recent volume, The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's Language (edited by Lynne Magnusson with David Schalkwyk, 2020): 'Shakespeare's creativity', 'performative power', 'figures of speech', 'rhetoric', 'literary experience', 'writing for actors' and 'popular culture'. Whilst all of these are relevant to Shakespeare's language, they would not be recognized by many linguists as having much to do with language. Conversely, some linguists, especially historical linguists, seem to deny that Shakespeare's language is a literary artefact. Instead, their focus is on the role of Shakespeare's language in the context of the study of the history of English. In other words, Shakespeare's language becomes a language dataset that can cast light on general linguistic issues pertaining to the English language. The work of Salmon (e.g., 1987a [1965], 1987b [1967]) is a landmark here. Of course, tensions between linguistic and literary approaches are all too familiar to the stylistics scholar. Modern literary stylistics is often traced back to the 1958 Indiana Style Conference, where Roman Jakobson concluded his intervention with a statement that was to become the unofficial manifesto of future stylisticians: […] a linguist deaf to the poetic function of language and a literary scholar indifferent to linguistic problems and unconversant with linguistic methods are equally flagrant anachronisms.

show abstract

Methods

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

‘Native woodnotes wild’: Shakespeare, his contemporaries, and the syntax of negation

‘Native woodnotes wild’: Shakespeare, his contemporaries, and the syntax of negation

Authorship Attribution: A Comparative Study of Three Text Corpora and Three Languages

Shakespeare’s language: Styles and meanings via the computer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About