Infected Affiances. Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare's plays

Javier E. Díaz Vera

Abstract


In this paper I propose an analysis of the metaphoric conceptualizations of JEALOUSY used in the bulk of Shakespeare’s plays. Following the metaphorical pattern analysis methodology, I have identified up to 53 figurative expressions for jealousy in Shakespeare’s English, which I have classified into broad conceptual areas (such as DISEASE/INSANITY, ENEMY/OPPONENT, NATURAL FORCE, WILD ANIMAL and POISON). Broadly speaking, these conceptual mappings illustrate Renaissance beliefs and ideas on jealousy, and are highly congruent with parallel studies on jealousy in Present-Day English. The most striking differences between both historical periods have to do with the lower frequency of somatic-related conceptualizations in Shakespeare’s English, where jealousy is frequently conceived of as an external force that attacks the experiencer’s body and mind. Finally, I propose a discussion of the distribution of these conceptual mappings among masculine and feminine characters in Shakespeare’s plays, where I tentatively affirm that feminine characters show a stronger tendency towards the use of embodied mappings for jealousy.


In diesem Beitrag versuche ich eine Analyse der im umfangreichen Shakespeare'schen Werk zu ermittelnden metaphorischen Konzeptualisierungen von Eifersucht. Mit Hilfe der metaphorical pattern-Analyse konnte ich bis zu 53 bildliche Ausdrücke für Eifersucht im Shakespeare-Englisch identifizieren. Diese habe ich anhand breiter konzeptueller Bereiche (wie etwa Krankheit, Feindschaft, Naturgewalt, wildes Tier und Gift) klassifiziert. Diese konzeptuellen Übertragungen illustrieren renaissancetypische Auffassungen zur Eifersucht und zeigen darüber hinaus starke Parallelen zu Untersuchungen der englischen Gegenwartssprache. Die auffälligsten Unterschiede bestehen in der geringeren Häufigkeit körperbezogener Konzeptualisierungen bei Shakespeare, bei dem Eifersucht häufig als eine äußere Gewalt beschrieben wird, die Körper und Geist des Betroffenen angreift. Abschließend diskutiere ich die Verteilung der verschiedenen Konzepte auf weibliche und männliche Charaktere. Erste Resultate zeigen, dass körperbezogene Konzepte stärker bei weiblichen Charakteren ausgeprägt sind.

Download kompletter Artikel (PDF): 

Ausgabe: 

Jahrgang: 

Seite 23

23
Infected affiances:
Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
Javier E. Díaz Vera, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
(JavierEnrique.Diaz@uclm.es)
Abstract
In this paper I propose an analysis of the metaphoric conceptualizations of JEALOUSY used in
the bulk of Shakespeare’s plays. Following the metaphorical pattern analysis methodology, I
have identified up to 53 figurative expressions for jealousy in Shakespeare’s English, which I
have classified into broad conceptual areas (such as DISEASE/INSANITY, ENEMY/OPPONENT,
NATURAL FORCE, WILD ANIMAL and POISON). Broadly speaking, these conceptual mappings
illustrate Renaissance beliefs and ideas on jealousy, and are highly congruent with parallel
studies on jealousy in Present-Day English. The most striking differences between both
historical periods have to do with the lower frequency of somatic-related conceptualizations
in Shakespeare’s English, where jealousy is frequently conceived of as an external force that
attacks the experiencer’s body and mind. Finally, I propose a discussion of the distribution of
these conceptual mappings among masculine and feminine characters in Shakespeare’s
plays, where I tentatively affirm that feminine characters show a stronger tendency towards
the use of embodied mappings for jealousy.
In diesem Beitrag versuche ich eine Analyse der im umfangreichen Shakespeare'schen Werk
zu ermittelnden metaphorischen Konzeptualisierungen von Eifersucht. Mit Hilfe der
metaphorical pattern-Analyse konnte ich bis zu 53 bildliche Ausdrücke für Eifersucht im
Shakespeare-Englisch identifizieren. Diese habe ich anhand breiter konzeptueller Bereiche
(wie etwa Krankheit, Feindschaft, Naturgewalt, wildes Tier und Gift) klassifiziert. Diese
konzeptuellen Übertragungen illustrieren renaissancetypische Auffassungen zur Eifersucht
und zeigen darüber hinaus starke Parallelen zu Untersuchungen der englischen
Gegenwartssprache. Die auffälligsten Unterschiede bestehen in der geringeren Häufigkeit
körperbezogener Konzeptualisierungen bei Shakespeare, bei dem Eifersucht häufig als eine
äußere Gewalt beschrieben wird, die Körper und Geist des Betroffenen angreift.
Abschließend diskutiere ich die Verteilung der verschiedenen Konzepte auf weibliche und
männliche Charaktere. Erste Resultate zeigen, dass körperbezogene Konzepte stärker bei
weiblichen Charakteren ausgeprägt sind.
1. Aims and objectives
The study of how metaphor and metonymy mediate our conceptualization of
sentiments is not new; it has been extensively approached by Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (henceforth CMT; Fesmire 1994; Kövecses 1986, 1988, 1990;
Lakoff 1987; Lakoff/Johnson 1980; Lakoff/Kövecses 1987). A central claim by
CMT scholars is that human feelings and emotions are largely understood and
expressed in metaphorical terms. Research into the linguistic expression of
metaphorik.de 22/2012
24
emotions and their metaphors has, for the most part, fallen into two positions:
metaphorical universality and cultural relativity (cf. Quinn/Holland 1987;
Kövecses 2005; Núñez/Sweetser 2006; Geeraerts/Gevaert 2008). Broadly
speaking, whereas universalist approaches to metaphorical conceptualizations
of emotions tend to focus on purely biological and physiological factors (such
as changes in body temperature or rate of heartbeat), the relativist perspective
maintains that variation in the metaphorical conceptualization of emotions is
sensitive to social, cultural and historical influences.
In this paper I propose a study of the metaphoric conceptualizations of
JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays, based on the analysis of a textual corpus
(Shakespeare Corpus, hence SC, compiled by Mike Scott) consisting of 37 plays
plus all the speeches of all characters. The digital texts, distributed in three
different folders (comedies, historical and tragedies), are based on the
standard Oxford University Press edition (Craig 1914). I have used Wordsmith
Tools version 5.0 (Scott 2008), although manual searches have also been
performed at times.
In order to extract the relevant metaphorical data from the textual corpus, I
have followed the metaphorical pattern analysis (hence MPA) methodology
proposed by Stefanowitsch (2004, 2006). This proposal consists in choosing
one or more lexical items referring to the target domain under scrutiny (i.e.
JEALOUSY) and extracting a sample of their occurrences in the corpus.
Thereafter, the metaphorical expressions of which the search word is a part are
identified and grouped into coherent sets representing general mappings.
Metaphorical patterns provide a basis for target-domain oriented studies of
metaphorical mappings, analogous to source-domain oriented methods. In
fact, using this method we can retrieve a large number of illustrations of our
target domain items (i.e. early Modern English1 jealousy and its synonyms and
derivates) and exhaustively identify the metaphorical patterns they occur
with.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines some particularities
related to the conceptualization of JEALOUSY in Modern English. Section 3
outlines the data and methodology used for this research. This is followed by a
1 Henceforth eModE.
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
25
discussion of the conceptualizations of JEALOUSY encoded in linguistic
expression in sections 4 and 5.
2. EModE conceptualizations of JEALOUSY
Within the general field of strong emotions, the domain of JEALOUSY and its
conceptualizations show a series of interesting peculiarities. To start with,
jealousy is often seen as a secondary emotion that requires a conceptualization
of the self.2 Jealousy is also described as a learnt emotion, that is, an emotional
association that is acquired with repeated experience (Damasio 1994: 134-138).
In fact, a previous knowledge of the values of a romantic relationship is
necessary for jealousy to be elicited: the motive for being jealous, the target of
the jealousy, who expresses it, when to express it, the manner of expressing it,
etc (Hupka 1991). Jealousy can thus be considered a social construction
(Averill 1980; Harré 1986) that may differ from culture to culture (Bryson
1991).
Numerous research studies have showed the existence of strong differences in
the way men and women respond to jealousy. These intra-cultural differences
have been analysed by, among others, Symons (1979), Daly/Wilson/Weghorst
(1982) and Wiederman/Allgeier (1993). Broadly speaking, these studies show
that whereas a wife’s experience of jealousy is determined by the degree of
threat that she perceives in her husband’s adultery, a husband’s experience of
jealousy is relatively invariant (Symons 1979: 232). In their analysis of 55
American undergraduate students (32 males and 23 females), Buss/Larsen/
Westen/Semmelroth (1992) predicted that men and women would differ in
their responses to emotional and sexual infidelity, with women being
relatively responsive to the former and men to the latter. According to their
study, whereas men appear to be more likely than women to become upset
over threats to sexual exclusivity, women are more likely than men to react
negatively to potential loss of partner time and attention. These sex differences
have been explained on purely evolutionary grounds, so that:
2 From this perspective, jealousy would not be possible in animals or in young infants.
Jealousy-related behaviours in animals and infants are referred to by Lewis (2010) as protojealousy,
and described as reactions of protest at lost of desired resources.
metaphorik.de 22/2012
26
ancestral women’s challenge of ensuring paternal investment
exerted selective pressures that increased women’s jealousy in
response to emotional infidelity, whereas ancestral men’s challenge
of paternal uncertainty exerted selective pressures that increased
men’s jealousy in response to sexual infidelity (Edlund et al. 2006:
462).
Given these peculiarities, relative degrees of variation in the linguistic
conceptualization of jealousy should be expected not only from culture to
culture, but also intra-culturally from individual to individual. However, in
spite of the strong cultural and social constraints on the conceptualization of
jealousy, cognitive linguistics literature has not paid much attention to the
different ways this emotion can be expressed linguistically.
In a recent study of the conceptualization of jealousy in Present-Day English,
Ogarkova (2007) proposes a list of up to 22 different mappings3. According to
her analysis, these are the most frequent metaphorical mappings for jealousy
found in the British National Corpus, in decreasing order of their frequencies
in her sample:
JEALOUSY IS DISEASE/PAIN: He felt a pang of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS AN OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE/ENEMY: The wounds of
jealousy reopen.
JEALOUSY IS A MIXED/PURE SUBSTANCE: The murky waters of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A (HOT) LIQUID (IN A CONTAINER UNDER PRESSURE): He
seethed with jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER: Her life is full of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS AN ANIMAL/INSECT: Jealousy is a shark seeking its supper.
JEALOUSY IS A SHARP OBJECT/WEAPON: A stab of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS FIRE: She was inflamed with jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A HUMAN BEING/(SLEEPING) ORGANISM: Jealousy is a
bedfellow.
JEALOUSY IS INSANITY/FOOLISHNESS: He went mad with jealousy.
3 These 22 metaphorical mappings listed by Ogarkova (2007) are instantiated by 399
individual metaphoric expressions (72.15% of the total) found in the corpus. The remainder
27.85% is constituted by EVENT STRUCTURE metaphors (i.e. general metaphorical systems
for verbalizing „notions like states, changes, processes, actions, causes, purposes, and
means”; Lakoff 1993:220).
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
27
JEALOUSY IS A (DESTRUCTIVE) PHYSICAL FORCE: She was moved by
jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS AN UNPLEASANT TASTE/GORGE: A taste of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS HIGH/LOW INTENSITY: She gave rise to jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS AN (UN)MASKED OBJECT: A display of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS AN OBSTACLE/BARRIER: Jealousy got in the way.
JEALOUSY IS A WRONGDOING: He confessed his jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A WEATHER PHENOMENON: Their lives were clouded by
jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A PLANT: He planted seeds of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A SPY: Prying jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS LIGHT: A spark of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A SUPERNATURAL BEING: The demons of jealousy.
JEALOUSY IS A MECHANISM: Jealousy is at work.
These metaphorical source domains address various aspects of the concept of
jealousy. For example, the ENEMY, WEAPON and DESTRUCTIVE FORCE metaphors
focus on the negative effects of jealousy on the experiencer, WRONGDOING on
the negative social perception of jealousy, and so forth. Now the conceptual
metaphors that seem to be the central ones for jealousy are:
• DISEASE/PAIN (which also accounts for INSANITY/FOOLISHNESS);
• OPPONENT/ENEMY (which also accounts for sharp OBJECT/WEAPON
and for DESTRUCTIVE NATURAL FORCE); and
• MIXED/PURE SUBSTANCE and (HOT) FLUID IN A CONTAINER.
Taken together, these mappings account for nearly 49.30% of all metaphors in
the whole sample. In sum, Ogarkova’s analysis clearly shows that jealousy is
predominantly viewed by speakers of Modern English as a painful experience,
located outside the experiencer (lack of control), but with very strong mental
and physical effects.
Taking all this into account, I will propose here a study of the conceptual
metaphors for jealousy used in Shakespeare’s plays. My selection of this textual
corpus is based on a variety of factors. To start with, with up to 37 different
plays illustrating three different sub-gender (comedies, historical and
tragedies), William Shakespeare is one of the most prolific English writers
ever. Furthermore, jealousy is a central topic on most of his works, and some
metaphorik.de 22/2012
28
of his characters have become universal icons. Finally, Shakespeare corpus has
proved a fundamental tool for the analysis of linguistic variation in early
Modern English (see, for example, Cyr 1983; Busse 2001, 2002; Dieter 2003;
Tissari 2006; among others). In spite of the very limited size of my corpus
(with around 820 000 words) and the relatively low number of occurrences of
jealousy-nouns in it (97 in all), I will use this data in order to address the
following questions:
1. What are the central conceptual metaphors for jealousy used in
Shakespeare’s English?
2. To what extent do these data point to masculine and feminine
psychological differences related to the conceptualization of jealousy in
the linguistic expressions used by his characters?
The first question is discussed in Section 4, where I present and discuss
conceptual source domains mapped on the target domain of jealousy. Finally,
in Section 5 I try to determine Shakespeare’s degree of awareness of gender
differences related to the conceptualization of jealousy, and how these
differences are reflected in the linguistic characterization of his masculine and
feminine characters.
3. Data and methodology
Using the online version of the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English
Dictionary (hence HTOED), I have made a full list of all the words for JEALOUSY
in usage between 1500 and 1700. The list consists of the following 10 early
Modern English (henceforth eModE) nouns and their adjectival derivates
(Table 1).
Thereafter, I have searched all the occurrences of each jealousy-word used in
the Shakespeare Corpus (97 occurrences in all). My search focuses on nouns
for two main reasons. Nouns, and especially abstract nouns, are not normally
used to make metaphors (Hanks 2006: 20), which guarantees that most, if not
all, the jealousy-nouns found in the corpus are being used non-metaphorically
and consequently refer to the concept jealousy. Furthermore, recent corporabased
studies of metaphor have shown that, when used metaphorically, a
large number of nouns tend to become a different part of speech (such as, for
example, a verb, an adjective or an adverb; Deignan 2005: 148). By combining
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
29
both principles, I will argue that most of the metaphorical patterns for
JEALOUSY included in the Shakespeare Corpus are composed of (1) a noun
from this domain (i.e. a jealousy-noun, as in Table 1), and (2) an adjective, verb
or adverb from a different domain (i.e. the metaphor’s source domain).
ENTRY FIRST
OCCURRENCE
LAST
OCCURRENCE
jealousness c1380 a1626
jealousy c1425
heartburning 1513
zealousy 1542 1598
yellowness 1598 1621
zelotypia 1601
yellows 1601 1638
heartburn 1621
zelotypie 1623
jealows-hood 1685 1486
Table 1: EModE lexemes for JEALOUSY
I have then grouped all these sentences into figurative (44 instances out of 97,
corresponding to 45.36%) and literal (53 instances, corresponding to 54.64%)
expressions. The distribution of figurative and literal uses of jealousy-words in
the three sub-corpora is represented in Table 2:
FIGURATIVE LITERAL TOTAL
TRAGEDY 13 25 38
COMEDY 27 25 52
HISTORY 4 3 7
TOTAL 44 53 97
Table 2: Figurative and literal uses of jealousy-words in Shakespeare’s Corpus
metaphorik.de 22/2012
30
Finally, I have analysed the resulting set of metaphorical patterns and
classified them into source domains, trying to determine the specific
paradigmatic relations between „lexical items from the target domain and the
source domain items that would be expected in their place in a nonmetaphorical
use” (Stefanowitsch 2006: 67).
4. Shakespeare’s metaphors of JEALOUSY
In the present study I have paid more attention to the qualitative analysis of
the data in that, given the limited size of my corpus, a quantitative analysis
could not be considered sufficiently representative. However, it is important
to note that the conceptual metaphors for jealousy described as central in
Ogarkova’s (2007) analysis of the BNC also show the highest frequencies in
my study of Shakespeare’s metaphors. This is clearly the case of the
DISEASE/INSANITY metaphor, with five occurrences in the whole corpus (see [1]
to [5]):
(1) Come hither, Mistress Ford, the honest woman, the modest wife, the
virtuous creature, that hath the jealous fool to her husband! I suspect
without cause, mistress, do I? (Ford/The Merry Wives of Windsor, 4.2.129-
132)
(2) Help to search my house this one time: if I find not what I seek, show no
colour for my extremity; let me for ever be your table-sport; let them say
of me, ‚As jealous as Ford, that searched a hollow walnut for his wife's
leman.' (Ford/The Merry Wives of Windsor, 4.2.160-164)
(3) In food, in sport, and life-preserving rest to be disturb'd, would mad or
man or beast: the consequence is then, thy jealous fits have scar'd thy
husband from the use of wits. (Abbess/The Comedy of Errors, 5.1.83-86)
(4) As man and wife, being two, are one in love, so be there ‚twixt your
kingdoms such a spousal that never may ill office, or fell jealousy,
which troubles oft the bed of blessed marriage, thrust in between the
paction of these kingdoms, to make divorce of their incorporate league;
(Queen Isabel/The Second Part of Henry IV, 5.2.3343-3348)
(5) For that I do suspect the lusty Moor hath leap'd into my seat; the
thought whereof doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw my inwards; and
nothing can or shall content my soul till I am even'd with him, wife for
wife, or failing so, yet that I put the Moor at least into a jealousy so
strong that judgment cannot cure. (Iago/Othello, 2.1.295-302)
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
31
Similarly, jealousy is described in the corpus as a dangerous opponent in a
struggle, as in the following examples:
(6) Why should I not, had I the heart to do it, like to the Egyptian thief at
point of death, kill what I love? A savage jealousy that sometimes
savours nobly. (Orsino/Twelfth Night, 5.1.120-23)
(7) For Hector in his blaze of wrath subscribes to tender objects, but he in
heat of action is more vindicative than jealous love. (Ulysses/Troilus
and Cressida, 4.5.105-7)
(8) No, Master Brook; but the peaking cornuto her husband, Master Brook,
dwelling in a continual 'larum of jealousy, comes me in the instant of
our encounter, after we had embraced, kissed, protested, and, as it were,
spoke the prologue of our comedy; (Falstaff/The Merry Wives of Windsor,
3.5.73-77)
(9) Poor and content is rich, and rich enough, but riches fineless is as poor
as winter to him that ever fears he shall be poor. Good heaven, the souls
of all my tribe defend from jealousy! (Iago/Othello, 3.3.172-176)
(10) O, beware, my lord, of jealousy; it is the green-eyed monster which doth
mock the meat it feeds on; that cuckold lives in bliss who, certain of his fate,
loves not his wronger. (Iago/Othello, 3.3.165-168)
The OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE metaphor is a specification of the general
metaphor JEALOUSY IS A LIVING BEING, normally a human or an
anthropomorphic entity, where jealousy is presented with human physical
and psychological features (such as eyes, sleep or hunger):
(11) But for mine honour, which I would free, if I shall be condemn’d upon
surmises, all proofs sleeping else but what your jealousies awake, I tell
you ’tis rigour and not law. (Hermione/Troilus and Cressida, 3.2.109-13)
(12) Nay, I will consent to act any villany against him, that may not sully the
chariness of our honesty. O, that my husband saw this letter! it would
give eternal food to his jealousy. (Mistress Ford/The Merry Wives of
Windsor, 2.1.658-661)
(13) As doubtful thoughts, and rash-embraced despair, and shuddering fear,
and green-eyed jealousy! (Portia/The Merchant of Venice, 3.2.115-16)
(14) How many fond fools serve mad jealousy! (Luciana/The Comedy of
Errors, 2.1.116)
(15) Self-harming jealousy! Fie! Beat it hence. (Luciana/The Comedy of
Errors, 2.1.376)
metaphorik.de 22/2012
32
(16) These are the forgeries of jealousy: and never, since the middle
summer's spring, met we on hill, in dale, forest, or mead, by paved
fountain, or by rushy brook, or in the beached margent of the sea, to
dance our ringlets to the whistling wind, but with thy brawls thou hast
disturb'd our sport. (Titania/A Midsummer’s Night Dream, 4.1.129-132)
(17) As he shall smile, Othello shall go mad; and his unbookish jealousy
must construe poor Cassio's smiles, gestures, and light behavior.
(Iago/Othello, 4.1.100-102)
(18) But jealous souls will not be answer'd so; they are not ever jealous for
the cause, but jealous for they are jealous; 'tis a monster begot upon
itself, born on itself. (Emilia/Othello, 3.4.159-162)
(19) But I do think it is their husbands' faults if wives do fall. Say that they
slack their duties, and pour our treasures into foreign laps, or else break
out in peevish jealousies, throwing restraint upon us; or, say they
strike us, or scant our former having in despite. (Emilia/Othello, 4.3.86-91)
(20) Believe me, I had rather have lost my purse full of cruzadoes; and, but
my noble Moor is true of mind, and made of no such baseness as
jealous creatures are, it were enough to put him to ill thinking.
(Desdemona/Othello, 3.4.25-29)
As can be seen in example (14), jealousy can be conceptualized as a SOCIAL
SUPERIOR, whereas the person who experiences jealousies becomes his servant.
A different version of the mapping JEALOUSY IS A RULER can be found in
examples (21) and (22), where jealousy is conceptualized as a god and a devil,
respectively:
(21) How novelty may move, and parts with person, alas, a kind of godly
jealousy —which, I beseech you, call a virtuous sin— makes me afeard.
(Troilus/Troilus and Cressida, 4.4.2513-16)
(22) That same knave Ford, her husband, hath the finest mad devil of
jealousy in him, Master Brook, that ever governed frenzy. (Falstaff/The
Merry Wives of Windsor, 5.1.16-18)
Less frequently, jealousy is mapped as a wild animal or even a monster, as can
be seen here and in examples (10) and (18) above:
(23) I will be more jealous of thee than a Barbary cock-pigeon over his
hen; more clamorous than a parrot against rain; more new-fangled than
an ape; more giddy in my desires than a monkey. (Rosalind/As You Like
It, 4.1.149-153)
(24) To both these sisters have I sworn my love; each jealous of the other, as
the stung are of the adder. (Edmund/King Lear, 5.1.57-59)
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
33
A final specification of the jealousy is a LIVING BEING can be found in the
following examples, where jealousy is described as an entity, probably a plant,
that grows or makes the person who experiences jealousy grow:
(25) I shall grow jealous of you shortly, Launcelot, if you thus get my wife
into corners. (Lorenzo/The Merchant of Venice, 3.5.31-32)
(26) By this marriage, all little jealousies which now seem great, and all
great fears which now import their dangers, would then be nothing;
truths would be but tales where now half tales be truths;
(Agrippa/Anthony and Cleopatra, 2.2.841-845)
The (DESTRUCTIVE) NATURAL FORCE scheme (with 3 occurrences in the corpus),
focuses on the same idea of jealousy as an external agent of movement, growth
or mistrust that cannot be controlled at all by the experiencer:
(27) For, being transported by my jealousies to bloody thoughts and to
revenge, I chose Camillo for the minister to poison my friend Polixenes:
(Leontes/The Winter’s Tale, 3.2.1390-93)
(28) Rumour is a pipe blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures, and of so
easy and so plain a stop that the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
the still-discordant wavering multitude, can play upon it. (Rumour/The
Second Part of Henry IV, 2.1.15-20)
(29) O! How hast thou with jealousy infected the sweetness of affiance.
Show men dutiful? (King Henry/The Second Part of Henry IV, 2.2.130-
131)
The SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER metaphor occupies however a much more
peripheral position here than in the BNC (Ogarkova 2007:104). With four
single occurrences, this pattern is only weakly present in the Shakespeare’s
Corpus.
(30) My foolish rival, that her father likes only for his possessions are so
huge, is gone with her along, and I must after, for love, thou know'st, is
full of jealousy. (Valentine/Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.4.175-8)
(31) I think my husband hath some special suspicion of Falstaff's being here;
for I never saw him so gross in his jealousy till now. (Mistress
Ford/The Merry Wives of Windsor, 3.3.187-189)
(32) To my sick soul, as sin's true nature is, each toy seems prologue to some
great amiss: So full of artless jealousy is guilt, it spills itself in fearing
to be spilt. (Queen Gertrude/Hamlet, 4.5.20-24)
(33) Think'st thou I'd make a life of jealousy, to follow still the changes of
the moon with fresh suspicions? (Othello/Othello, 3.3.177-179)
metaphorik.de 22/2012
34
This is in clear constrast with modern theories on the embodiment of emotions
(Prinz 2004), according to which emotions occur when the perception of an
exciting fact causes a number of bodily changes. In Shakespeare’s plays, there
is a strong preference for non-somatic conceptualizations of jealousy, which is
presented as an external factor of emotional distress, as in the OPPONENT,
ANIMAL and NATURAL FORCE metaphors described above. Furthermore, if we
assume that the very low salience of this somatic pattern in Shakespeare’s
English is to some extent representative of literary early Modern English
usage, one could tentatively propose the existence of a general diachronic
pattern from non-somatic conceptualizations of emotions in early English to
more physiological associations and embodiment in Present-Day English. This
claim is supported by the fact that a similar tendency has been described
related to the expression of anger (Geeraerts/Gevaert 2008) and fear (Díaz-Vera
2011) in literary varieties of Old and Middle English. However, the limited
nature of my corpus implies that further research into the figurative and nonfigurative
expressions of jealousy in early Englishes is needed before this
hypothesis can be confirmed.
Of special relevance in Shakespeare’s plays is the use of colour metaphors for
jealousy. This emotion is referred to as a destructive ‚green-eyed’ being on two
different occasions (see examples [10] and [13] above). This association of
jealousy with the colour green is not new. As indicated by Gundersheimer
(1993:323-324), sixteenth-century philosophers and writers equated jealousy
with coldness. Interestingly, since women were presumed to have less body
heat than men, it followed that jealousy should come more easily to them:
According to the medical theories of the time, women have colder
bodies; thus, the jealousy natural to them serves to quench the fires
of love. For this reason, too, jealousy is associated with the colour
green, whose opposite signifies the passion of love (Gundersheimer
1993:324).
In the following example, jealousy is associated with the colour of an orange
skin:
(34) The count is neither sad, nor sick, nor merry, nor well; but civil count,
civil as an orange, and something of that jealous complexion.
(Beatrice/Much Ado About Nothing, 2.1.275-277)
According to most interpretations of this paragraph, rather than the orange
colour, this is a reference to yellow, a colour traditionally related to jealousy in
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
35
early English (as in the noun yellowness). According to Williams (1994), the
homonymic factor „presumably eased the association between yellow
melancholia and jaundice” (p. 1557). However, as stated by Hulme (1891), the
origins of this association are deeply rooted in Christian traditions:
In France, during the sixteenth century, the doors of felons and
traitors were painted yellow; and in some countries the Jews were
required to wear yellow, because they denied the Messiah. It is the
colour of jealousy and treason, and Judas is often represented in old
glass painting in a yellow robe (p. 20).
Similarly, in (35) jealousy is mapped as a tainting substance, which can change
the colour of someone’s heart and brain:
(35) Why did you suffer Iachimo, slight thing of Italy, to taint his nobler
heart and brain with needless jealousy; (Sicilius/Cymbeline, 5.4.63-66)
The mapping JEALOUSY IS A MECHANISM is relatively frequent in Shakespeare’s
plays, as in:
(36) Thy tyranny, together working with thy jealousies, fancies too weak for
boys, too green and idle for girls of nine, O! Think what they have done,
and then run mad indeed, stark mad; (Paulina/The Winter’s Tale, 3.2.192-
195)
(37) As, I confess, it is my nature's plague to spy into abuses, and oft my jealousy
shapes faults that are not,—that your wisdom yet, from one that so
imperfectly conceits, would take no notice, nor build yourself a trouble out of
his scattering and unsure observance. (Iago/Othello, 3.3.146-151)
Finally, I will discuss briefly three metaphoric mappings that are not listed in
Ogarkova’s (2007) study of jealousy in the BNC: POISON (as in [38]), UNITY OF
TWO PARTS (as in [39]) and LOCATION (as in [40-41]).
(38) And thereof came it that the man was mad: The venom clamours of a
jealous woman poison more deadly than a mad dog's tooth.
(Abbess/The Comedy of Errors, 5.1.68-70)
(39) Lord Cardinal, will your Grace persuade the queen to send the Duke of
York unto his princely brother presently? If she deny, Lord Hastings, go
with him, and from her jealous arms pluck him perforce. (Duke of
Buckingham/The Tragedy of King Richard III, 2.4.32-36)
(40) Why, look, where he comes; and my good man too: he's as far from
jealousy, as I am from giving him cause; and that, I hope, is an
unmeasurable distance. (Mistress Page/The Merry Wives of Windsor,
2.1.104-106)
metaphorik.de 22/2012
36
(41) I know you two are rival enemies: How comes this gentle concord in the
world, that hatred is so far from jealousy, to sleep by hate, and fear no
enmity? (Theseus/A Midsummer’s Night Dream, 4.1.129-132)
The image of jealousy as a poison has a long literary tradition in Europe
(Wagschal 2006: 79-80). This pattern, which can be related to the UNPLEASANT
TASTE/SMELL metaphor illustrated by examples (42) and (43) below, is highly
consistent with some of the physiological effects of jealousy, which are similar
to well-known specific responses to most drugs (including alcohol): they
include, among other things, increased heart rate, increased systolic and
diastolic blood pressure, palm sweating and frowning (Pietrzak/Laird/
Stevens/Thompson 2002: 83).
(42) Why should I not, had I the heart to do it, like to the Egyptian thief at
point of death, kill what I love?--a savage jealousy that sometimes
savours nobly. (Orsino/Twelfth Night, 5.1.120-23)
(43) O! how hast thou with jealousy infected the sweetness of affiance.
Show men dutiful? (King Henry/The Second Part of Henry IV, 2.2.130-
131)
Example (43) illustrates the blending of the mappings JEALOUSY IS A BITTER
TASTE and JEALOUSY IS A SHARP WEAPON.
As for the UNITY OF TWO PARTS metaphor, jealousy is conceived of as a physical
force that keeps two lovers together, sometimes against the will of one of
them. The same metaphor is used by Shakespeare in order to characterize both
friendship and romantic love (Tissari 2006:155-156). Friends and lovers are in fact
presented as Siamese twins who cannot be separated from each other.
Finally, the mapping JEALOUSY IS A PLACE is related to general EMOTIONS ARE
LOCATIONS metaphor, according to which emotions are metaphorically viewed
as locations which may be reached, occupied and left behind (Pérez Rull 2001).
5. Men’s vs. women’s jealousy metaphors
According to Kövecses (2005:91), „a language community may employ
differential metaphorical conceptualizations along a social division that is
relevant in that society”. As has been pointed earlier, this may be applicable to
some of the intra-cultural differences between men and women, which are
reflected in a variety of ways in our metaphorical language and thought. In
this section, I will try to determine to what extent Shakespeare tried to use
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
37
different conceptualizations of jealousy in the stereotyped linguistic
characterization of his male and female characters. Although my analysis does
not necessarily represent gender distinctions in actual language usage or
thinking, it can be illustrative of how conscious Renaissance speakers were of
the existence of these differences.
As described above, my analysis has focused on 50 metaphorical mappings for
jealousy. Of these, 29 correspond to male characters, whereas the other 22
correspond to female characters. Finally, two examples correspond to
personified entities, such as Time and Rumour, and have not been included in
this part of the study. The distribution of the metaphors of jealousy used by
Shakespeare in his masculine characters is illustrated in Table 3.
OCCURRENCES
OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE 5
INSANITY/DISEASE 3
ANIMAL/MONSTER 3
SUPERNATURAL ENTITY 2
PLANT 2
(DESTRUCTIVE) FORCE 2
SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER 2
COLOUR 2
MECHANISM 2
HUMAN (ANTHROPOMORPHIC) BEING 1
UNITY OF TWO PARTS 1
LOCATION 1
WEAPON 1
UNPLEASANT TASTE 1
TOTAL 28
Table 3: Man’s metaphors for jealousy in SC
metaphorik.de 22/2012
38
As can be seen here, there is a clear preference for the OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE
mapping (5 occurrences), which is followed by the INSANITY/DISEASE and the
ANIMAL/MONSTER mappings (3 instances each).
Violence, rivalry and loss of self-control are in fact typically masculine
reactions to negative emotions in general, and to jealousy in particular
(Salovey/Rodin 1984). Jealousy is presented here as an external entity that
attacks and takes hold of the experiencer’s body and mind (as can be seen in
the mappings JEALOUSY IS AN OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE, JEALOUSY IS
INSANITY/DISEASE and JEALOUSY IS AN ANIMAL/MONSTER). In the case of
feminine characters, the preference is for the HUMAN BEING mapping (9
occurrences). Besides personification, there seems to be a relative preference in
Shakespeare’s female characters for mappings that imply embodiment of this
emotion, as in the case of ANIMAL/MONSTER, COLOUR, SUBSTANCE IN A
CONTAINER and COLOUR. Jealousy seems to have a corporeal existence, either as
an external being or, metonymically, as a substance that invades the
experiencer’s body producing a series of psychological and physiological
effects.
OCCURRENCES
HUMAN BEING 9
DISEASE/INSANITY 2
ANIMAL/MONSTER 2
SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER 2
COLOUR 2
MECHANISM 2
RULER 1
POISON 1
LOCATION 1
TOTAL 22
Table 4: Women’s metaphors for jealousy in SC
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
39
6. Conclusions
In this study I have presented an analysis of a series of metaphoric
conceptualizations of jealousy used by Shakespeare in his 37 plays. Using the
metaphorical pattern analysis methodology proposed by Stefanowitsch (2004,
2006), I have analysed all the sentences where the noun jealousy or any of its
early Modern English synonyms and derivates is used in a metaphorical
pattern in the Shakespeare Corpus. Thereafter, these patterns have been
classified into metaphorical mappings (50 mappings in all), which inform us
on Renaissance conceptualizations of jealousy.
Broadly speaking, my analysis confirms and complements Ogarkova’s (2007)
assumptions on the conceptualization of jealousy in Present-Day English both
in terms of conceptual mappings and of individual preferences. Only in the
case of conceptualizations of jealousy based on its somatic effects (such as
SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER), I have noted that their saliency is much lower in
Shakespeare’s English than in the BNC. Physiological associations and
embodiment are relatively more frequent in the case of feminine characters,
which could be illustrative of the different reactions to infidelity by women
and men. I have also identified a series of mappings that are not listed in
Ogarkova’s study: this is the case of JEALOUSY IS A POISON, JEALOUSY IS UNION
OF TWO PARTS and JEALOUSY IS A LOCATION, which illustrate characteristically
Renaissance conceptualizations of jealousy (especially in the case of the poison
metaphor, as indicated by Wagschal, 2006).
In any case, given the limited nature of the data used here, further research
into the figurative and non-figurative expressions of jealousy in the early stages
of the history of English is required in order to have a more comprehensive
view of this field and its evolution.
References
A. Corpora and Dictionaries
MED = Middle English Dictionary, The (2001), online edition. McSparran,
Frances (ed.): http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/med/ (last accessed 10/10/2011).
OED = Oxford English Dictionary, The (2000–), second edition, online version.
Simpson, John (ed.): http://www.oed.com (last accessed 10/10/2011).
metaphorik.de 22/2012
40
SC = Shakespeare Corpus (2006), online edition. Scott, Mike (ed.):
http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/support/shakespeare.html (last accessed
10/10/2011.
B. Secondary References
Averill, James R. (1980): „A Constructivist View of Emotion”, in: Plutchik,
Robert/Kellerman, Henry (eds.): Emotion: Theory, research and experience,
New York, 305-339.
Bryson, Jeff B. (1991): „Modes of Response to Jealousy Evoking Situations”, in:
Salovey, Peter (ed.): The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy, New York, 178-210.
Buss, David M./Larsen, Randy J./Westen, Drew/Semmelroth, Jennifer (1992):
„Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology”, in:
Psychological Science 3, 251-255.
Busse, Ulrich (2001): „The use of address pronouns in Shakespeare’s plays and
sonnets”, in: Andersen, Henning (ed.): Actualization: Linguistic Change in
Progress, Amsterdam, 119-142.
Busse, Ulrich (2002): Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus, Amsterdam.
Craig, William James (1914): The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works of
William Shakespeare, Oxford.
Cyr, Helen W. (1983): Lexical Choices and Morphological Variables in the
Shakespeare and Oxford Corpora, Baltimore, Maryland.
Daly, Martin/Wilson, Margo/Weghorst, Suzanne J. (1982): „Male Sexual
Jealousy”, in: Ethology & Sociobiology 3, 11-27.
Damasio, Antonio (1994): Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain, New York.
Deignan, Alice (2005): Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam.
Díaz-Vera, Javier E. (2011): „Reconstructing the Old English Cultural Model
for FEAR”, in: Atlantis 33(1), 85-103.
Edlund, John E./Heider, Jeremy D./Scherer, Cory R./Farc, Maria-
Magdalena/Sagarin, Brad J. (2006): „Sex Differences in Jealousy in
Response to Actual Infidelity”, in: Evolutionary Psychology 4, 462-470.
Fesmire, Steven. A. (1994): „Aerating the Mind: The Metaphor of Mental
Functioning as Bodily Functioning”, in: Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9,
31-44.
Geeraerts, Dirk/Gevaert, Caroline (2008): „Hearts and (Angry) Minds in Old
English”, in: Sharifian, Farzad/Dirven, René/Yu, Ning (eds.): Culture,
Body, and language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs Across
Cultures and Languages, Berlin, 319-347.
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
41
Gundersheimer, Werner (1993): „‚The Green-Eyed Monster’: Renaissance
Conceptions of Jealousy”, in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 137(3), 321-331.
Hanks, Patrick (2006): „Metaphoricity is Gradable”, in: Stefanowitsch,
Anatol/Gries, Stephan Th. (eds.): Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and
Metonymy, Berlin/New York, 17-35.
Harré, Rom (1986): „An Outline of the Social Constructionist Viewpoint”, in:
Harré, Rom (ed.): The Social Construction of Emotions, Oxford, 2-14.
Hulme, Edward (1891): The History, Principles and Practice of Symbolism in
Christian Art, London.
Hupka, Ralph B. (1991): „The Motive for the Arousal of Romantic Jealousy: Its
Cultural Origin”, in: Salovey, Peter (ed.). The Psychology of Jealousy and
Envy, New York, 252-270.
Kövecses, Zoltan (1986): „A Figure of Thought”, in: Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity 6, 29-46.
Kövecses, Zoltan (1988): The Language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in
Conversational English, Lewisburg, PA.
Kövecses, Zoltan (1990): Emotion Concepts, New York.
Kövecses, Zoltan (2005): Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation,
Cambridge.
Lakoff, George (1987): Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind, Chicago.
Lakoff, George (1993): „A Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, in: Orton,
Antony (ed.): Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, 202-251.
Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (1980): Metaphors We Live By, Chicago.
Lakoff, George/Kövecses, Zoltan (1987): „The Cognitive Model of Anger
Inherent in American English”, in: Holland, Dorothy/Quinn, Naomi
(eds.): Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Cambridge, 195-221.
Lewis, Michael (2010): „Lost, protest and emotional development”, in: Hart,
Sybil L./Legerstee, Maria (eds.): Handbook of Jealousy: Theory, Research, and
Multidisciplinary Approaches, Chichester, 27-39.
Núñez, Rafael/Sweetser, Eve (2006): „With the Future Behind Them:
Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and Gesture in the
Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time”, in: Cognitive
Science 30(3), 401-450.
metaphorik.de 22/2012
42
Ogarkova, Anna (2007): „Green-Eyed Monsters: a Corpus-Based Study of the
Concepts of ENVY and JEALOUSY in Modern English”, in: Metaphorik.de
13, 87-147.
Pérez Rull, Juan Carmelo (2001): „The conceptualization of emotions as
locations in English”, in: RESLA 14, 353-363.
Pietrzak, Robert H./Laird, James D./Stevens, David A./Thompson, Nicholas
S. (2002): „Sex Differences in Human Jealousy: A Coordinated Study of
Forced-Choice, Continuous Rating-Scale, and Physiological Responses on
the Same Subjects”, in: Evolution and Human Behaviour 23, 83-94.
Prinz, Jesse J. (2004): „Embodied Emotions”, in: Solomon, Robert (ed.):
Thinking about Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotion, Oxford, 44-
60.
Quinn, Naomi/Holland, Dorothy (1987): „Culture and Cognition”, in: Quinn,
Naomi/Holland, Dorothy (eds.): Cultural Models in Language and Thought,
Cambridge, 3-42.
Salovey, Peter/Rodin, Judith (1984): „Some Antecedents and Consequences of
Social Comparison Jealousy”, in: Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 47, 780-792.
Scott, Mike (2008): WordSmith Tools version 5, Liverpool.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2004): „HAPPINESS in English and German: A
Metaphorical-Pattern Analysis”, in: Kemmer, Achard/Kemmer, Susanne
(eds.): Language, Culture, and Mind, Stanford, 137-149.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2006): „Words and their Metaphors: A Corpus-Based
Approach”, in: Stefanowitsch, Anatol/Gries, Stephan Th. (eds.): Corpusbased
Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, Berlin/New York, 63-105.
Stein, Dieter (2003): „Pronominal usage in Shakespeare: Between
sociolinguistics and conversation analysis”, in: Taavitsainen, Irma/Juker,
Andreas (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems,
Amsterdam, 251-307.
Symons, Donald (1979): The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Oxford.
Tissari, Helli (2006): „‚Is Love a Tender Thing?’ Metaphors of the Word LOVE
in Shakespeare’s Plays”, in: Studi Linguistic e Filologici Online 4.1.,
http://www.humnet.unipi.it/slifo/vol4.1/Tissari4.1.pdf (last accessed
15/10/2011).
Wagschal, Stevens (2006): The Literature of Jealousy in the Age of Cervantes,
Columbia/London.
Díaz Vera, Metaphors of the word JEALOUSY in Shakespeare’s plays
43
Wiederman, Michael W./Allgeier, Elizabeth R. (1993): „Gender Differences in
Sexual Jealousy: Adaptionist or Social Learning Explanation?”, in:
Ethology and Sociobiology 14, 115–140.
Williams, Gordon (1994): A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in
Shakespeare and Tudor Literature, London/New Jersey.