Shakespeare And English Speech Rhythm

[skelso]

Friends, teachers, Shakespeareans, lend me your experiences! What do you know about natural, English speech rhythm and how Shakespeare's use of language might help students with this? I am an ESL teacher in an intensive English program and am writing my master's thesis on using Shakespeare with ESL and EFL students in secondary and college levels. If you have any experience in this area please respond to my 15 question survey at http://english.boisestate.edu/skelso

[Andrew Patterson]

Well, as a native speaker, I got the joke at the start of the thread. You've messed about with the beginning of Cassius's speach in Julius Caesar, right?

I don't think, however, that the rhythm of Shakespearian English has much to do with the rhythm of modern English. Both are stress-timed rather than any other timing, but that is where the similarity ends. We notice a distinct difference in the rhythm every time we here Shakespeare.

The language of Shakespeare is now archaic. "To be or not to be" seems to be international, and indicates the sense of purpose shown by to+infinitive, other than that, perhaps it might be worth doing a few very common quotations at proficiency or even post-proficiency level of the sort that most native speakers would know and even use (as you did above.) Hey, they might even get some of the more subtle and not so subtle jokes in the Blackadder comedy series and dare I say it the film "Carry on Cleo". I'm not sure why you'd want to use Shakespeare for the rhythm in EFL, though, maybe for contrast and maybe for teenagers (I had to do this myself) but I wouldn't overdo it.

Don't get me wrong, here, I like Shakespeare, but methinks there be a time and a place.

Simplified readers of course always manage to mangle Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is the worst:

Romeo Romeo wherefore art thou O Romeo?

becomes:

Romeo where are you?

Apart from being overly prosaic and out of charactor with the original, it is also a mistranslation, although admitedly most native speakers today would probably read it that way. In actual fact, "wherefore" originally meant "why". A more accurate modern translation, therefore would be:

Romeo, why do you exist? (As this fact causes me such torment.)

[lolwhites]

While I don't claim to be an expert on Shakespeare, I have had it explained to me that the rhythm and rhymes in his plays are there for the benefit of the actors. In Shakespeare's time the actor wouldn't have had a full script, just his own lines. It was therefore necessary to provide cues so the actor would know when his line was coming up, hence the very distinctive rhyme and rhythm. For an example of what I'm talking about, look at the rehearsals of "Pyramus and Thisbe" in A Midsummer Night's Dream

Beautiful it may be but I'm not sure it'll provide much insight for the typical "I want to learn English to get rich" student.

[Stephen Jones]

"Wherefore art thou Romeo" would translate into modern English as "why are you called Romeo". This ties up with the line further on "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Her plaint is that the boy she has fallen in love with is unavailable because of his name/lineage.

"Pyramus and Thisbee" is a skit on other plays of the time. It quite possibly might make fun of some of the conventions of other hacks. It would be difficult for Shakespeare to be using rhyme for the purposes you suggest since most of the plays are in blank verse.

The standard rythm of Shakespeare's plays is the iambic pentameter. It is the closest to English conversational stress patterns (both then and now - in this respect there is no evidence of a significant change as there is in phonology). However the one stressed to one unstressed syllable is still a higherproportion of stressed syllables than that found in normal English.

The idea of using Shakespeare to teach EFL students seems barmy. I have taught Shakespeare to foreign language teachers but they were post-Profiicency students with an excellent grounding in Spanish Literature.

[lolwhites]

"Pyramus and Thisbee" is a skit on other plays of the time. It quite possibly might make fun of some of the conventions of other hacks. It would be difficult for Shakespeare to be using rhyme for the purposes you suggest since most of the plays are in blank verse.

What I was referring to was the way that when the "performers" rehearse, they plough on through their own lines instead of spotting their cues. A modern audience may not be aware that this was how plays were written down in those days. It did make a difference to the way plays were written, but students have asked me whether the language of Shakespeare reflects how English was spoken at the time, which is most definitely not the case.

[Stephen Jones]

Not with you at all lolwhites. Even now an actor won't learn other people's lines; he'll simply learn the cue.

And how on earth does the fact that the speeches are written in blank verse help an actor recognize the cue?

[lolwhites]

OK, I'm not claiming to be an expert here but I was told by a theatre producer I met on holiday that rhyme and rhythm was used to help the actor recognise the cue e.g.

MERCUTIO
.....
This field-bed is too cold for me to sleep:
Come, shall we go?

BENVOLIO...............Go, then; for 'tis in vain
To seek him here that means not to be found.

ROMEO

He jests at scars that never felt a wound

Note how Benvolio's line picks up from Mercutio's; together they make one 10 syllable line (like the others). Note also the that found and wound would have rhymed in Shakespeare's time. These would all have helped the actors remember their lines. It might not seem so important nowadays when shows run for weeks, months or even years but the turnaround times in Shakespeare's time were much shorter and actors had to learn new plays all the time.

[Stephen Jones]

Ryhme ks rare enough in the later Shaekspeare for me to doubt the thesis.

Benvolio will pick up his cue from Mercutio, but rhythm has little to do with it.

Where we get a long speech it is often clear that the speech is ending. That is simply good writing though.

It is true that plays did not have long runs; on the other hand a play would be revived every few months and sometimes even more frequently.

And of course there is the fact that in a predominantly oral civilzation memory for words would be much more developed.

[lolwhites]

Whatever. The people I've met who work in the theatre, including my drama-teaching colleagues must all be wrong.

[Stephen Jones]

Whatever. The people I've met who work in the theatre, including my drama-teaching colleagues must all be wrong.

That would not be impossible. Theatre people are notoriously lacking in academic rigor when it comes to understanding texts.

Even so, I would think it more than likely that you had misinterpreted them. Rhyme and rhtythm obviously make it easier to learn your lines, which is why we can learn chunks of poetry much easier than chunks of prose. I sispect that is what they are referring to.

As I said rhyme is rare in all but the early Shakespeare. When he does use it, it is often at the very end of a scene to give a sense of completion - which rather puts paid to the prompt idea.

[revel]

Good morning all!

I'm going to have to differ with Steven Jones on some of his comments. This thread has brought the actor in me to the forefront, has made me recall my training in a normal, midwestern state university. We were being prepared for careers as actors, actresses, scene designers, costume designers, writers and directors. Though few, if any, would end up working in theatre, we were given instruction on how to participate in that profession if and when Lady Luck gave us our break.

"Theatre people are notoriously lacking in academic rigor when it comes to understanding texts. " What?!? Perhaps in high-school theatre productions, perhaps in Community theatre productions, perhaps in "I have a barn, my gramma has a trunk full of old clothes, let's put on a play" productions. In professional theatre an integral part of the work of the actor is text-analysis. The director carries the weight of the interpretation of the text, but actors are trained and expected to understand the entire play, their own and others' motivations. In my mediocre training in the midwestern state university we were required to take at least three different courses on text-analysis. The actor who did not understand the play did not get the part. The rigor included detailed, written contemplation of even the smallest parts. We did not merely memorize our lines and then dress up, paint our faces and say those lines in front of an audience.

"Even now an actor won't learn other people's lines; he'll simply learn the cue. " Forgive me, but more hogwash. Not all actors have the capacity to learn their lines in a rote manner. The truth is, learning them in that way is once again, simply saying lines, that is not acting. One proof of this is a common note directors have to give: stop moving your lips to the other actor's lines. Actors certainly spend time in basic memorization; however, a good deal of learning those lines is the repetition in the rehearsal process. And the most important part of learning ones lines is the understanding that one is not simply spitting out those words in that particular moment but rather replying to what another actor has said before while anticipating what will be said after (while trying not to appear to know what will be said after!). There was nothing more frustrating to us as actors than the "sides" rented out by Thames and Whitmark for American Musical Comedies. Only the principal actors would have the entire script, while secondary actors would receive a version with only their lines, preceded by the last four words of the previous line. We always ended up photocopying the entire script for everyone, as using these "sides" was a tedious exercise in rote memorization, which again, is not acting. An actor indeed learns his/her lines, but he/she also learns the entire play.

On Shakespeare, unfortunately we can only speculate. I think a better example of his theatre would be found in the improvisation done in "Hamlet", where a theme is given to talented actors with years of experience in using IP. When a rhyme happily appears, it is stuck in, where the lines do dumdeedumdeedum it sounds like poetry and where there is simple telling of the story in first person, it becomes blank verse. A stage manager with a quick hand jots down what the actor has improvised, based on the story that Shakespeare has offered and that gets published and is attributed solely to Shakespeare, when it might have been the joint work of a good story-teller, a talented director and more importantly some very talented improvisational actors. Don't mistake improvisation for saying whatever first comes to your mind. They had a story to tell, they had many years of experience reciting verses, Steven is probably right in his comment on an oral society being more capable orally than our modern-day passive, visual society.

I don't doubt that the actors took advantage of the poetry in the play to remember what they ought to say in any given moment. I tend to think that they probably thought about what needed to happen in that moment so that in the next moment what would need to happen would happen, so that the play would have its exposition, its climb to climax, its climax and its fall to curtain and bows. Since playwrighting was a craft and not an art, it is even probable that certain techniques as rhythm and rhyme were used to aid in the memory of texts for presentation, though that may well have been an afterthought and not a reason for writing the texts in that manner.

peace,
revel.

[revel]

Ooops, forgot to add....

I think Shakespeare is absolutely useless in the ESL classroom. The language is archaic and of no use in modern communication. The only time Shakespeare arises is when students begin to complain that they find English stilted, inflexible, harsh. That's when I whip out a sonnet and share his language with them. Or Richard II's speech when he gives up the crown:

"Your cares set up do not pluck my cares down.
My care is loss of care, by old care done;
Your care is gain of care, by new care won:
The cares I give I have, though given away;
They tend the crown, yet still with me they stay."
(Act IV, Scene I)

It's lovely, but it's not an economic use of class time, methinks.

peace,
revel.

[Stephen Jones]

I didn't say that theatre people didn't put a lot of effort into text analysis. I just suggested that the results of that effort are often wacky or derisory. It obviously varies from individual to individual but in general I would no more go to an actor or director to ask about an interpretation of Shakespeare than I expect a full diagnosis of a twinge in my leg from a professional soccer player.

With regard to the question of an actor learning just his lines or others, I believe you are misintepreting me. I believe most actors will only learn their own lines off by rote - that doesn't mean that they won't end up by knowing the whole play as a result of extensive rehearsals. And of course actors in Shakespeare's time would do the same. If Shakespeare wrote in rhyme and blank verse so that the actors would remember their cues why don't Pinter or Mamut wirte all their plays in heroic couplets to aid memorization? The same principle holds surely?

I think a better example of his theatre would be found in the improvisation done in "Hamlet", where a theme is given to talented actors with years of experience in using IP. When a rhyme happily appears, it is stuck in, where the lines do dumdeedumdeedum it sounds like poetry and where there is simple telling of the story in first person, it becomes blank verse. A stage manager with a quick hand jots down what the actor has improvised, based on the story that Shakespeare has offered and that gets published and is attributed solely to Shakespeare, when it might have been the joint work of a good story-teller, a talented director and more importantly some very talented improvisational actors.

This kind of nonsense is what I mean when I talk about theatre people not being intellectually rigurous. It is about as scientific as suggesting that Shakespeare's plays were written by extra-terrestrials, and considerably less probable.

Tens of thousands of scholars have spent the last two hundred years analysing Shakespeare's texts in exruciating detail, and there is a fair agreement on the few parts of the canon that have parts written by others. I know of no serious Shakespearian scholar who has suggested multiple authorship for Shakespeare's plays, and would be most interested if Revel could point me to one, just as I would be interested if lolwhites could point me to reputable sources for the contention that rhyme and rythm is used in Shakespeare to help the actors know when to say their lines (incidentally this goes against all that Revel is saying about how actors do learn and interpret their lines).

Ther is a vast corpus of Shakespearian scholarship. Can you please give us some references to it and not to casual comments from a theatre director met on holiday. You wouldn't accept comments from a television newsreader you met on the bus, as an authorative source for English syntax, nor comments from the guy who repairs your boiler as being laws of thermodynamics.

[lolwhites]

I would be interested if lolwhites could point me to reputable sources for the contention that rhyme and rythm is used in Shakespeare to help the actors know when to say their lines (incidentally this goes against all that Revel is saying about how actors do learn and interpret their lines).

No sooner said, Steven, no sooner said...

"Shakespeare wrote many of his plays in blank verse—unrhymed poetry in iambic pentameter, a verse form in which unaccented and accented syllables alternate in lines of ten syllables. In Shakespeare’s hand the verse form never becomes mechanical but is always subject to shifts of emphasis to clarify the meaning of a line and avoid the monotony of unbroken metrical regularity. Yet the five-beat pentameter line provides the norm against which the modifications are heard. Shakespeare sometimes used rhymed verse, particularly in his early plays. Rhymed couplets occur frequently at the end of a scene, punctuating the dramatic rhythm and perhaps serving as a cue to the offstage actors to enter for the next scene." (my emphasis)

David Scott Kastan, B.A., M.A., Ph.D
Old Dominion Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University. Author of Shakespeare and the Book (2001); Shakespeare After Theory (1999); Shakespeare and the Shapes of Time (1982).
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761562101__ ... peare.html

"Shakespeare’s plays were written in verse for other practical reasons. First, an actor might have to perform as many as forty plays a year, so lines of verse were easier to memorize."

"When Romeo finds out from the Nurse that Juliet is a Capulet, his response (a shared line in which he picks up his cue from the Nurse) is a clever rhyme using a word play with “account” and “debt” (1.5.116)." (my emphasis)

Andrea B. Brown, Sherlock Holmes and Shakespare: Decoding Shakespeare’s Language in Romeo and Juliet
http://www.uh.edu/hti/cu/2001/v04/02.pdf

Sure, it wasn't the only reason but it certainly seems to have been one of them.

[lolwhites]

Quotes from articles aside, I find some of the arguments in your last post to be at best, disingenuous:

in general I would no more go to an actor or director to ask about an interpretation of Shakespeare than I expect a full diagnosis of a twinge in my leg from a professional soccer player.

I'm not sure whether this is more insulting to actors or footballers. Professional sportsman have often done some kind of sports science course, including body mechanics and anatomy. They may not be able to provide a full diagnosis but may well still be in a position to comment and say what may be the matter. Professional actors and directors study hard and work even harder. The idea that that an academic is by definition better placed to comment than someone who performs a part or directs the entire piece seems pretty dismissive. Anyway, the original question was about speech patterns.

If Shakespeare wrote in rhyme and blank verse so that the actors would remember their cues why don't Pinter or Mamut wirte all their plays in heroic couplets to aid memorization

Come off it Stephen! Why should all playwrights through the ages adopt the same style? Noone ever said "Shakespeare did it this way for one reason only, it's the best way and everyone else should do likewise". And how many actors today have to perform in up to 40 different productions in a year?

You wouldn't accept comments from a television newsreader you met on the bus, as an authorative source for English syntax, nor comments from the guy who repairs your boiler as being laws of thermodynamics.

Now this really is disingenuous! It's not a newsreader's job to analyse syntax, nor is a boiler repairer's job to know about thermodynamics. Budding theatre directors and actors, however, are expected to have some grasp of understanding a text, as Revel pointed out (having studied it himself).