Document Type: Original Article

Authors

Hebron University, Palestine

Abstract

This paper aims to examine, reveal and analyse Shylock's speech in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, by connecting his words to the power, identity, and ideology in the play. The purposes of this study are to examine the effects of linguistic manipulation on power, to link language with the structure of a society, and to find the impact of a combination of different ideologies on each other. Hence, this descriptive qualitative study explores the literature to answer the aforementioned questions. What is found in this paper is that Shylock, the Jew, lacks power, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity, but when he tries to find these aspects, he fails to gain any of them. The reasons behind Shylock's failure in obtaining "the self" can be attributed to his brutal character. His insistence on the literal implementation of the bond leads to his destruction. He neglects the fact that those charged with power are able to edit the language of "his bond" the way they like. To conclude, language is one of the most influencing factors aiding in imposing power, destroying "unwanted" identities, and appropriating others' ideology by the "upper hands" in any society.
Keywords: The Merchant of Venice Shylock's Speech, Critical Discourse Analysis.

Keywords

h: 0px; "> Barnet, S. (1972). Prodigality and Time in The
Merchant of Venice. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America,
26-30.
Beauchamp, G. (2011). Shylock's Conversion. Humanitas, 24, 55-92.
Blanchard, J. (2009). Contesting Constancy in The Merchant of Venice. Renascence, 61(4),
209-220.
Bloom, H. (1998). Shakespeare: The Invention
of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books.
Deng, W., & Wu, Y. (2013). The New
Exploration to The Merchant of Venice.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
3(9), 1624-1629.
Dutta, U. (2013). Representation of Race in
Four Shakespearean Plays: Titus
Andronicus, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice. European
Academic Research, 1(6), 922-948.
Ganyi, F. (2013). The Jew as Racial “Villain”: a Historico-Generic Interpretation of Shylock,
Iago and Barabbas as Victims of Racial Circumstances in Elizabethan Drama,
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(6), 122-131.
Gross, K. (2008). Shylock is Shakespeare. University of Chicago Press.
Harp, R. (2010). Love and Money in The Merchant of Venice. Modern Age, 52(1), 37-44.
Harris, A., & Rubinstein, F. (2004). Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice.
Explicator, 62(2), 70-74.
Hartman, G. (2011). The Tricksy Word: Richard Weisberg on The Merchant of
Venice. Law & Literature, 23(1), 71-79.
Heller, A. (2000). The Absolute Stranger:Shakespeare and the Drama of Failed
Assimilation. Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy & Social Theory, 1(1), 147-167.
Hieatt, A. (2002). Shakespeare, William. In Encarta Encyclopedia [CD-ROM].
Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.
Hodge, B. (2012). Ideology, Identity,Interaction: Contradictions and Challenges for Critical Discourse Analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across
Disciplines, 5 (2), 1-18.
Horwich, R. (1977). Riddle and Dilemma in
The Merchant of Venice. Studies in English
Literature (Rice), 17(2), 191.
Hunt, M. (2003). Shakespeare's Venetian Paradigm: Stereotyping and Sadism in The
Merchant of Venice and Othello. Papers on Language & Literature, 39(2), 162.
Jackson, K. (2007). ‘Shylock: The Knight of Faith’. Journal for Cultural and Religious
Theory, 8(2): 67–82.
Long, M. (2012). Merchantry, Usury, Villainy: Capitalism and the Threat to Community
Integrity in The Merchant of Venice.
Anthropoetics, 17(2) - Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.anthropoetics. ucla.
edu/ap1702/1702long.htm.
Marzola, A. (1997). Which is the Woman Here, and Which the Man? Economy and Gender
in The Merchant of Venice. European
Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 291-309.
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Masugi, K. (1997). Race, the Rule of Law, and The Merchant of Venice: From Slavery to
Citizenship. Notre Dame Journal of Law,
Ethics & Public Policy, 11, 197- 223.
McAvan, E. (2011). Economies of Sacrifice in "> The Merchant of Venice: God, the Gift and
Shakespeare. The Bible and Critical Theory, 6(1). 2.1-2.11.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between Theory, Method, and Politics: Positioning of the Approaches
to CDA, in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds).
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications LTD, 14–31.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge.
Nickel, J. (2001). Shylock in Washington: the Clinton Crisis, The Merchant of Venice, and
Enjoyment of the Law. Textual Practice, 15(2), 317-335.
Picker, J. (1994). Shylock and the Struggle for Closure. Judaism, 43(2), 173 -189.
Schuman, S. (2002). Authorizing Meaning in
The Merchant of Venice. Text &
Performance Quarterly, 22(1), 47-62.
Scott, W. O. (2004). Conditional Bonds,
Forfeitures, and Vows in "The Merchant of Venice". English Literary Renaissance,
34(3), 286-305.
Shakespeare, W. (1992). The Merchant of Venice. Roma Gill (Ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sherman, D. (2013). Governing the Wolf: Souland Space in The Merchant of Venice.
Journal of Medieval & Early Modern Studies, 43(1), 99-120.
Tiffany, G. (2006). Law and Self-Interest in"The Merchant of Venice". Papers on
Language & Literature, 42(4), 384-400.
Turner, H. S. (2006). The Problem of the morethan-one: Friendship, calculation, and
political association in The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare Quarterly, 57(4), 413-
442.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese discourse, 1(1),
17-28.
Weinstein, B. (2007). Shakespeare's forgivable portrayal of Shylock. Jewish Bible
Quarterly, 35(3), 187-192.
Widdowson, H. (2007). Discourse analysis.Oxford: Oxford University Press.