Element contents
Teaching English as a Second Language with Shakespeare
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 May 2024
Summary
Teaching pragmatics, that is, language in use, is one of the most difficult and consequently neglected tasks in many English as a Second Language classrooms. This Element aims to address a gap in the scholarly debate about Shakespeare and pedagogy, combining pragmatic considerations about how to approach Shakespeare's language today in ESL classes, and practical applications in the shape of ready-made lesson plans for both university and secondary school students. Its originality consists in both its structure and the methodology adopted. Three main sections cover different aspects of pragmatics: performative speech acts, discourse markers, and (im)politeness strategies. Each section is introduced by an overview of the topic and state of the art, then details are provided about how to approach Shakespeare's plays through a given pragmatic method. Finally, an example of an interactive, ready-made lesson plan is provided.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009332002Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 13 June 2024
References
Adams, M. (2002). ‘Teaching “Bad” American English’. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(4), 353–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1997). ‘“I Think” – An English Modal Particle’. In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. J., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Rühlemann, C., eds. (2015). Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, K. & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arafah, B. (2018). ‘Incorporating the Use of Literature as an Innovative Technique for Teaching English’. AICLL, 1, 24−36.Google Scholar
Arnovik, L. (1999). Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R., eds. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Aston, R. J. (2020). The Role of Literary Canon in the Teaching of Literature. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmaca, H. & Günday, R. (2016). ‘Using Literary Texts to Teach Grammar in Foreign Language Classroom’. Participatory Educational Research, Special Issue 2016–IV, 127–33.Google Scholar
Austin, P. (1990). ‘Politeness Revisited – The Dark Side’. In Bell, A. & Holmes, J., eds., New Zealand Ways of Speaking English. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 276–94.Google Scholar
Bardsley, S. (2006). Venomous Tongues: Speech and Gender in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M., Glaesser, J., Kelava, A., Kirchhoff, L., & Zirker, A. (2022). ‘“When Most I Wink, then” – What? Assessing the Comprehension of Literary Texts in University Students of English as a Second Language’. Language and Literature, 31(3), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic Markers in British English – Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M. (2000). ‘Is a Diachronic Speech Act Theory Possible?’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore Evans, G., ed. (2018). The New Cambridge Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blank, P. (2018). Shakesplish: How We Read Shakespeare’s Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobkina, J. (2014). ‘The Use of Literature and Literary Texts in the EFL Classroom: Between Consensus and Controversy’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 248–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boose, L. E. (1991). ‘Scolding Brides and Bridling Scolds: Taming the Woman’s Unruly Member’. Shakespeare Quarterly, 41(2), 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D. & Culpeper, J. (2008). ‘Impoliteness: Eclecticism and Diaspora’. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 161–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, H. & Murphy, A. (2020). English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, L. (2014). Cambridge School Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, L. & Coles, J., eds. (2018). Cambridge School Shakespeare: King Richard III, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-Based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1990). ‘The Development of Discourse Markers in English’. In Fisiak, J., ed., Historical Linguistics and Philology. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2007). ‘The Development of I Mean: Implications for the Study of Historical Pragmatics’. In Fitzmaurice, S. M. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 37–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2010). ‘Discourse Markers’. In Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosa Rodríguez, A. (2021). ‘Corpus and Universals in Language in Pragmatics’. e-AESLA, 7, 37–49.Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1983). ‘The Acquisition of Pragmatic Commitments’. In Golinkoff, R., ed., The Transition from Prelinguistic to Linguistic Communication. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Bruti, S. (2016). ‘Teaching Compliments and Insults in the EFL Classroom through Film Clips’. In Bianchi, F. & Gesuato, S., eds., Pragmatic Issues in Specialized Communicative Contexts. Leiden: Brill, pp. 149–70.Google Scholar
Busse, B. & Busse, U. (2012). ‘Methodological Suggestions for Investigating Shakespearean Discourse Markers on the Old Texts of Shakespeare’s Plays’. In Suhr, C. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/11/busse_busse/#_ftn1 [Accessed 15/1/2023].Google Scholar
Busse, U. & Busse, B. (2017). ‘The Language of Shakespeare’. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J., eds., The History of English, vol. 4: Early Modern English. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 309–32.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, R. & Long, M. N. (1987). The Web of Words: Exploring Literature through Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Catasso, N., Coniglio, M., & De Bastiani, C., eds. (2022). Language Change at the Interfaces: Intrasentential and Intersentential Phenomena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes, L. (1993). Notorious Identity: Materializing the Subject in Shakespeare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ciambella, F. (2021). ‘Training Would-Be Teachers: Premises and Results of a Content-Based ESL Course’. Status Quaestionis, 20, 343–69.Google Scholar
Cinganotto, L. (2019). ‘Debate as a Teaching Strategy for Language Learning’. Lingue e Linguaggi, 30, 107−25.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). ‘The Significance of Learner’s Errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1–4), 161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressy, D. (2010). Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious, and Treasonable Speech in Pre-modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crible, L. (2017). ‘Towards an Operational Category of Discourse Markers: A Definition and Its Model’. In Fedriani, C. & Sansò, A., eds., Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2002). ‘To Modernize or Not to Modernize: There Is No Question’. Groundlingo, 15–17, www.davidcrystal.com/Files/BooksAndArticles/-4232.pdf [Accessed 10/8/2022].Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2012). ‘Think on My Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. & Crystal, B. (2002). ‘Discourse Markers’. Shakespeare’s Words, www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/LanguageCompanion/ThemesAndTopics.aspx?TopicId=11 [Accessed 13 February 2023].Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). ‘Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness’. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349−67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2007). ‘A New Kind of Dictionary for Shakespeare’s Plays: An Immodest Proposal’. Sederi, 17, 47–73.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). ‘Keyness: Words, Parts-of-Speech and Semantic Categories in the Character-Talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). ‘Politeness and Impoliteness’. In Aijmer, K. & Andersen, G., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 391−436.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2014). ‘Developing Keyness and Characterization: Annotation’. In Hoover, D. L., Culpeper, J., & O’Halloran, K., eds., Digital Literary Studies: Corpus Approaches to Poetry, Prose, and Drama. New York: Routledge, pp. 35–63.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2016). ‘Impoliteness Strategies’. In Capone, A. & Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 421–46.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2018). ‘Taboo Language and Impoliteness’. In Allan, K., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 28−40.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2021). ‘Impoliteness and Hate Speech: Compare and Contrast’. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Hardaker, C. (2017) ‘Impoliteness’. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kadar, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Oliver, S. J. (2020). ‘Pragmatic Noise in Shakespeare’s Plays’. In Jonsson, E. & Larsson, T., eds., Voices Past and Present – Studies of Involved, Speech-Related and Spoken Texts: In Honor of Merja Kytö. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Semino, E. (2000). ‘Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Klerk, V. (1991). ‘Expletives: Men Only?’ Communication Monographs, 58,156–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P., eds. (2013). Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, eds.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Villano, B. (2018). Using the Devil with Courtesy: Shakespeare and the Language of (Im)politeness. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). ‘Context and L2 Users’ Pragmatic Development’. In Hua, Z., Seedhouse, P., Wei, L., & Cook, V., eds., Language Learning and Teaching as Social Inter-Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 163–82.Google Scholar
Dewi, S. U. (2015). ‘Syllabus of Vocational Secondary School Based on ESP Approach’. Dinamika Ilmu, 15(2), 273–95.Google Scholar
Dhanapal, S. (2010). ‘Stylistics and Reader Response: An Integrated Approach to the Teaching of Literary Texts’. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1(4), 233–40.Google Scholar
Divsar, H. & Tahriri, A. (2009). ‘Investigating the Effectiveness of an Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in an EFL Context’. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 2(13), 105–16.Google Scholar
Dobson, M. (2017). ‘Preface: Shakespeare and the Teaching of Language’. In Lau, L. C. M. & Tso, W. B. A., eds., Teaching Shakespeare to ESL Students. Singapore: Springer, pp. vii–ix.Google Scholar
Dupuis, M. & Tiffany, G., eds. (2013). Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Dusinberre, J. (1996). Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenmann, M. & Lütge, C., eds. (2014). Shakespeare in the EFL Classroom. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Elyasi, J. (2013). ‘Teaching Language through Literature: A Content-based Instruction Model.’ Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(10), 9–18.Google Scholar
Estill, L. (2006). ‘Performative Language in Renaissance Performance’. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-estill.htm [Accessed 16/3/2023].Google Scholar
Farahani, M. V. & Ghane, Z. (2022). ‘Unpacking the Function(s) of Discourse Markers in Academic Spoken English: A Corpus-Based Study’. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, C. & Sansò, A. (2017). Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. & Cohen, A. D. (2012). ‘Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource’. Hispania, 95(4), 650–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenn, R. & McGlynn, A. (2018). Teaching Grammar through Literature: Bringing Language to Life in the Secondary Classroom. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., (2008). Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 37–79.Google Scholar
Flachmann, M. (1997). ‘Professional Theater People and English Teachers: Working Together to Teach Shakespeare’. In Salomone, R. E. & Davis, J. E., eds., Teaching Shakespeare: Into the Twenty-First Century. Athens: Ohio University Press, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1998). ‘Contrastive Discourse Markers in English’. In Jucker, A. & Ziv, Y., eds., Discourse Markers: Description and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 301–26.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). ‘An Account of Discourse Markers’. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). ‘Topic Orientation Markers’. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furkó, P. (2014). ‘Cooptation over Grammaticalization – The Characteristics of Discourse Markers Reconsidered’. Argumentum, 10, 289–300.Google Scholar
Furkó, P. (2018). ‘The Boundaries of Discourse Markers – Drawing Lines through Manual and Automatic Annotation’. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 10(2), 155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, C. (2014). ‘The Development of Discourse and Pragmatic Markers’. In Ghezzi, C. & Molinelli, P., eds., Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, C. Jr. (2024). ‘Compliments, Insults, and Broken Taboos in Richard III’s Quest for Power’. In Ciambella, F., ed., Taboo Language and (Im)politeness in Early Modern English Drama. Naples: UniorPress, pp. 21–57.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. (1998). Teaching Shakespeare: A Handbook for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilfillan Upton, B. (2006). Hearing Mark’s Endings: Listening to Ancient Popular Texts through Speech Act Theory. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, K. (2013). ‘The Neglected Combination: A Case for Explicit-Inductive Instruction in Teaching Pragmatics in ESL’. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 150–63.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gotti, M. (2003). Specialized Discourse: Linguistic Features and Changing Conventions. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1968). ‘Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning’. Foundations of Language, 4(3), 225–42.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hall, G. (2015). Literature in Language Education, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamamra, B. (2019). ‘Performative Utterances and Gender Performance in Shakespeare’s Richard III’. Bethlehem University Journal, 36, 115−32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. (1997). ‘Alors and Donc in Spoken French: A Reanalysis’. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. (2006). ‘A Dynamic Polysemy Approach to the Lexical Semantics of Discourse Markers (With an Exemplary Analysis of French “Toujours”)’. In Fischer, K., ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrabi, A. (2011). ‘ESP Education in Tunisia: The Way for a Reform’. In Shafaei, A., ed., Frontiers of Language and Teaching, vol. 2. Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press, pp. 166–71.Google Scholar
He, P., & Lin, A. (2018). ‘Becoming a “Language-Aware” Content Teacher: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Teacher Professional Development as a Collaborative, Dynamic, and Dialogic Process’. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 162–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyden, T. (2002). ‘Shakespeare for ESL? Hamlet through Imaginative Writing’. The Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 7, 20–23.Google Scholar
Hill, W. F. & Öttchen, C. J. (1991). Shakespeare’s Insults: Educating Your Wit. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
Hill, W. F. & Öttchen, C. J. (1996). Shakespeare’s Insults for Teachers. London: Clarkson Potter.Google Scholar
Holland, P. (2000). ‘Modernizing Shakespeare: Nicholas Rowe and The Tempest’. Shakespeare Quarterly, 51(1), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, G. (2013). ‘“You Taught Me Language; and My Profit on’t / Is, I Know How to Curse”: Cursing and Swearing in Foreign Language Learning’. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(3), 283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibsen, E. B. (1990). ‘The Double Role of Fiction in Foreign-Language Learning: Towards a Creative Methodology’. English Teaching Forum, 28(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
Ingram, M. (1994). ‘“Scolding Women Cucked or Washed”: A Crisis in Gender Relations in Early Modern England?’ In Kermode, J. & Walker, G., eds., Women, Crime and the Courts. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 48–80.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I. (2018). ‘Teachers’ Perception of the Role of Pragmatics in the EFL Classroom’. Studies in Linguistics, Culture and FLT, 3, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’. In Brower, R. A., ed., On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 232–39.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., ed. (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1997). ‘The Discourse Marker Well in the History of English’. English Language & Linguistics, 1(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2002). ‘Discourse Markers in Early Modern English’. In Watts, R. & Trudgill, P., eds., Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge, pp. 210–30.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2006). ‘Historical Pragmatics’. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 329–32.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. (2000). ‘Diachronic Speech Act Analysis: Insults from Flyting to Flaming’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I., eds. (2008). Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (1998). ‘Discourse Markers: Introduction’. In Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y., eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaduce, R. & Metzger, N. (2019). ‘Dagnabit! It’s Time to Teach Swearing in ESL Classrooms’. MIDTESOL Journal, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Kapranov, O. (2018). ‘Discourse Markers in the Genre of Formal Letters Written by Intermediate Students of English as a Foreign Language’. Studies about Language, 33, 74–89.Google Scholar
Kidnie, M. J. (2021). ‘The Modern Editing of Shakespeare: The Text’. In Erne, L., ed., The Arden Research Book of Shakespeare and Textual Studies. London: The Arden Shakespeare Bloomsbury, pp. 188–205.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. (2004). ‘Methodological Problems in Corpus-Based Historical Pragmatics: The Case of English Directives’. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23), Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 237–47.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. (2008). ‘Tracing Directives through Text and Time: Towards a Methodology of a Corpus-Based Diachronic Speech-Act Analysis’. In Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, T. (2015). ‘Speech Acts: A Diachronic Perspective’. In Aijmer, K. & Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–83.Google Scholar
Kott, J. (1964). Shakespeare Our Contemporary, trans. B. Taborski. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1978). ‘The Monitor Model for Second Language Acquisition’. In Gingras, R. C., ed., Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Kucharczyk, S. & Kucharczyk, M. (2022). Teaching Shakespeare in Primary Schools: All the World’s a Stage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). ‘Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusing and Insulting Language’. Paper in Linguistics, 13(4), 607–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2002). ‘Towards an Interface of Language and Literature’. Lenguaje y Textos, 20, 21–34.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2022). English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2003). “Towards an Interface of Language and Literature.” Lenguaje y Textos, 20, 21–34.Google Scholar
Lau, L. C. M. & Tso, W. B. A. (2017). Teaching Shakespeare to ESL Students. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (2011). ‘A Discourse-Constructional Approach to the Emergence of Discourse Markers in English’. Linguistics, 49(2), 415–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liyanage, I., Walker, T., Bartlett, B., & Guo, X. (2015). ‘Accommodating Taboo Language in English Language Teaching: Issues of Appropriacy and Authenticity’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(2), 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llach, P. A. (2007). ‘Teaching Language through Literature: The Waste Land in the ESL Classroom’. Odisea, 8, 7–17.Google Scholar
Lull, J., ed. (2009). The New Cambridge Shakespeare: King Richard III, updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2016). ‘Exploring the Characterisation of Social Ranks in Early Modern English Comedies’. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 17, https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/17/lutzky/ [Accessed 16 February 2023].Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R. (2001). Shakespeare and the Arts of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maley, A. (1989). ‘Down from the Pedestal: Literature as Resource’. In Carter, R., Walker, R., & Brumfit, C., eds., Literature and the Learner: Methodological Approaches. Oxford: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council, pp. 10–24.Google Scholar
Malouf, A. (2017). ‘“Blame the Due of Blame”: The Ethics and Efficacy of Curses in Richard III’. Criterion: A Journal of Literary Criticism, 10(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (1994). ‘Metalanguaging and Discourse Markers in Bilingual Conversation’. Language in Society, 23, 325–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. (1998). ‘Rotsè lishmoa kéta? “Wanna Hear Something Weird/Funny?” [Lit. “A Segment”]: Segmenting Israeli Hebrew Talk-in-Interaction’. In Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y., eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. & Schiffrin, D. (2015). ‘Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context’. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 54–75.Google Scholar
Maturi, M. (2021). ‘Nulla è bene e male in sé, ma è il pensiero che lo rende tale’: Analisi linguistica di parolacce e insulti nel teatro shakespeariano. Unpublished BA thesis, Sapienza University of Rome.Google Scholar
Maune, J. F. (2015). ‘Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in an EFL Life Science Course’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meiki, S. (2022). ‘Learning Japanese Culture with Shakespeare’. Okayama Economic Review, 53(3), 81–88.Google Scholar
Mercury, R.-E. (1995). ‘Swearing: A “Bad” Part of Language; A Good Part of Language Learning’. TESL Canada Journal, 13 (1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinelli, P. (2018). ‘Different Sensitivity to Variation and Change: Italian Pragmatic Marker Dai vs. Discourse Marker Allora’. In Bordería, S. Pons & Lamas, O. Loureda, eds., Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change. Leiden: Brill, pp. 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montini, D. (2013). ‘Tracing Speech Acts through Text and Genre: Directives and Commissives in Queen Elizabeth I’s Political Speeches and in Shakespeare’s Henry V’. Status Quaestionis, 2(5), 130–46.Google Scholar
Mullini, R. (2016). ‘The Pragmatics of Dialogical Asides in Shakespeare’. Memoria di Shakespeare: A Journal of Shakespearean Studies, 3, 69–81.Google Scholar
Murphy, S., Culpeper, J., Gillings, M., & Pace-Sigge, M. (2020). ‘What Do Students Find Difficult When They Read Shakespeare? Problems and Solutions’. Language and Literature, 29(3), 302–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1999). ‘Early Modern English Lexis and Semantics’. In Lass, R., ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3 (1476–1776). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 332–458.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (2006). An Introduction to Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, S. J. (2022). ‘A Corpus-Based Approach to (Im)politeness Metalanguage: A Case Study on Shakespeare’s Plays’. Journal of Pragmatics, 199, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgel, S. (1996). Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pecorari, D. & Malmström, H. (2018). ‘At the Crossroads of TESOL and English Medium Instruction’. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I., Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, M., & Schramm, M. (2015). Introduction to English Linguistics, 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponomareva, A. (2021). The Application of Intersemiotic Translation in SLA. Unpublished MA thesis, Sapienza University of Rome.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. M. (2008). ‘Mourning and Memory in Richard III’. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews, 21(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
Romano, M. & Cuenca, M. J. (2013). ‘Discourse Markers, Structure, and Emotionality in Oral Narratives’. Narrative Inquiry, 23(2), 344–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltz, D. Z. (2000). ‘The Reality of Doing: Real Speech Acts in the Theatre’. In Krasner, D., ed., Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saner, E. (2023). ‘OMG! Is Swearing Still a Taboo?’ The Guardian, 2 September 2023, www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/09/is-swearing-still-taboo [Accessed 19 February 2023].Google Scholar
Savvidou, C. (2004). ‘An Integrated Approach to the Teaching of Literature in the EFL Classroom’. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(12), 14–21 http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html#:~:text=An%20integrated%20approach%20to%20the,in%20all%20its%20discourse%20types [Accessed 26 July 2022].Google Scholar
Schalkwyk, D. (2019). ‘The Performative Power of Shakespeare’s Language’. In Magnusson, L. & Schalkwyk, D., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B. (1976). ‘Für eine historische Analyse von Sprechakten’. In Weber, H. & Weydt, H., eds., Sprachtheorie und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 113–19.Google Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B. (1983). Tradition des Sprechens: Elemente einer pragmatischen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). ‘The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning’. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L. (1999). ‘Discourse Markers: Tutorial Overview’. Lingua, 107, 227–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharif, M., Yarmohammadi, L., Sadighi, F., & Sadegh Bagheri, M. (2017). ‘Teaching Pragmatics in the EFL Classroom: Challenges, Lacunas, and Suggestions’. Advanced Education, 8, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R., ed. (2014). Cambridge School Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1985). ‘Discourse Markers in Early Modern English’. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W., & van der Leek, F., eds., Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 283–302.Google Scholar
Stern, S. L. (1985). Teaching Literature in ESL/EFL: An Integrative Approach. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Swan, S. (2013). ‘Teaching Shakespearean Insults Helps My Students Decode the Bard’s Language’. The Guardian, 24 April. www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/apr/24/shakespeare-lesson-ideas-teaching-insults [Accessed 13 March 2023].Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H., & Tuominen, J., eds. (2015). Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Targoff, R. (2002). ‘“Dirty” Amens: Devotion, Applause, and Consent in Richard III’. Renaissance Drama, 31, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2021). ‘Inference and Implicature’. In Haugh, M. & Kádár, D. Z., eds., Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–47.Google Scholar
Thom, N. T. T. (2008). ‘Using Literary Texts in Language Teaching’. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Language, 24, 120–26.Google Scholar
Thomas, K. (1971). Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Thompson, A., ed. (2017). The New Cambridge Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A. (1991). ‘A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English’. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 313–29.Google Scholar
Timucin, M. (2001). ‘Gaining Insight into Alternative Teaching Approaches Employed in an EFL Literature Class’. Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, 24, 269–93.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tso, A. W. (2016). ‘Teaching Shakespeare to Young ESL Learners in Hong Kong’. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 6(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Uchimaru, K. (2020). ‘“Wisely, and Slow. They Stumble That Run Fast”: Learner-Friendly Shakespeare in an EFL Classroom’. Early Modern Culture Online, 7, 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underdown, D. E. (1985). ‘The Taming of the Scold: The Enforcement of Patriarchal Authority in Early Modern England’. In Fletcher, A. & Stevenson, J., eds., Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–39.Google Scholar
Vaught, J. C. (2008). Masculinity and Emotion in Early Modern English Literature. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Verdonik, D. (2022). ‘Annotating Dialogue Acts in Speech Data: Problematic Issues and Basic Dialogue Act Categories’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics: Online-First Articles, doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20165.ver [Accessed 13 January 2023].Google Scholar
Vienne-Guerrin, N. (2022). The Anatomy of Insults in Shakespeare’s World. London: The Arden Shakespeare.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilches, M. L. (2001). ‘Language and Literature: The Inseparable Interface’. English Teacher: An International Journal, 4(2), 136–46.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). ‘Interaction between Learning and Development’. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.Google Scholar
Wedlock, J. (2020). ‘Teaching about Taboo Language in EFL/ESL Classes: A Starting Point’. ORTESOL Journal, 37, 33–47.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2016). ‘DART – The Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M. (2018). How to Do Corpus Pragmatics on Pragmatically Annotated Data: Speech Acts and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M. (2019). ‘The DART Annotation Scheme: Form, Applicability and Application’. Studia Neophilologica, 91(2), 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M. (2020). ‘Speech Acts in Corpus Pragmatics: Making the Case for an Extended Taxonomy’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25(4), 400–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellek, R. & Warren, A. (1956). Theory of Literature, 3rd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Wells, S., ed. (1984). Re-editing Shakespeare for the Modern Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. (2015). ‘How to Make Shakespeare Easy for English Language Learners’. British Council. 22 April. www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/how-make-shakespeare-easy-english-language-learners [Accessed 13 March 2023].Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). ‘Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction’. Lingua, 175–76, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, J. & Tandy, M. (2012). Beginning Shakespeare 4–11. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yimwilai, S. (2015). ‘An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in an EFL Classroom’. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaroff, L. Z. (2010). ‘Drowning in Science … Saved by Shakespeare: Teaching Literature to Premedical Students’. Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, 73(2), 13–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: Unknown
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
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.