Speaking Loudly: Critical Stylistic Analysis of Selected Soliloquies in Hamlet

Critical Stylistics is concerned with the study of ideology in literary and political texts. It draws on certain criteria from the stylistic analysis.  Thus, this paper attempts to apply Jeffries’ (2010) model of critical stylistics to soliloquies of Shakespearean Hamlet. It specifically aims at analyzing the two soliloquies made by the character Hamlet using only three textual-conceptual functions of the model: Representing Actions/ Events/ States; Exemplifying and Enumerating; and Hypothesizing. These functions are adopted here because they somehow represent what the character is saying loudly. The data is analyzed qualitatively to show how the tools are used and then quantitatively to show how many times these same tools are used. This paper concludes that Shakespeare’s language is ideologically loaded and there are discrepancies in the frequency and function of these tools. Besides, the frequency of these tools proves how the ideology is enforced through the language of the text.

Each one of these has a certain effect on the reader or hearer. For example, actions represent what is being done; events represent what is happening; and states what is being only a state. When it comes to representing actions, states, or events, Jeffries (2010) adopts Simpson's (1993) model of transitivity because she claims it is clearer and more usable than Halliday's model of transitivity (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004). Transitivity refers to the way meanings are encoded in the clause and to the way different types of process are represented in the language (Simpson: 2004: 22).
Simpson states that transitivity normally picks out three key components of processes. The first is the process itself, which is typically realized in grammar by the verb phrase. The second is the participant or participants associated with the process. Typically, those participants are realized by noun phrases. The transitivity model assigns different categories to lexical verbs, according to the type of process expressed by the verb; there are four main categories of verbs: Material Actions, Verbalization, Mental processes, and Relational Processes. This material action verb is intentional because conscious human beings do it; the action is done intentionally by the doer or agent. Sometimes, there is an affected entity by this type of verb such as: (5) The strange man hit Tom.
Sometimes, a writer /speaker uses a passive construction with this kind of verb where the actors become part of the much marginal adverbial constituents that follow the verb, unlike the goals, which become the grammatical subjects as in Example (6). Instead, the relationship between them remains the same but with some kind of effect: (6) Tom was hit by a strange man.
b. Material Action Supervention includes an unintentional verb performed by animate conscious beings, such as: (7) The man fell of the ladder. (8) John lost his temper.
The action described by these verbs is one that the subject cannot control; the man fell unintentionally, and John did not lose his temper on purpose, although it might be verbal or physical, the verb downplays the language used by John.
c. Material Action Events refer to verbs with inanimate actors. In such cases, human agency is missing or downplayed. Examples of events would be something like: (9) The door opened.
(10) The piano fell on my car!
In these cases, the actor is the element that distinguishes the kind of verb used.

Verbalization
Verbalization is a category that involves verbs that describe actions that use language verbally, such as say, tell, claim, etc. these are clearly identified as verbalization, for example:

. Relational Verbs
This category "represents the static or stable relationships between Carriers and Attributes, rather than any changes or dynamic actions," (Jeffries, 2010: 43) and includes: copula (to be), and other intensive relations, Possessive relations, and Circumstantial relations that involve verbs of movement and verb be with the placing or timing of the process being uppermost, they are exemplified below:

Carrier
Relation Attribute When it comes to the structuring of exemplifying and enumerating, exemplifying is sometimes made obvious through phrases such as to exemplify, for instance, for example, etc., which do not occur with enumeration. Furthermore, there is sometimes overlap or difficulty to distinguish between enumerating and exemplifying. In this case, readers or hearers should depend on pragmatic inferences to differentiate between exemplifying and enumerating in texts, such as: The whole country came out on Friday's night: the President, the ministers, the officers, and the people. (22)The whole team was present: the coach, the players and the substitutes.
It is clear that the structure of these two examples above is identical, but depending on pragmatic competence, the reader/hearer could tell that Example (21) is exemplifying because it cannot possibly happen that literally all people came out; some people must have stayed home that night. Therefore, the list is an exaggeration. Example (22) is enumerating because it is possible that those mentioned can be present.
More often, the lists of exemplification or enumeration consist of items of the same syntactic structure. For example, those examples above consists of noun phrases. Furthermore, items of lists may consist of the verb phrase, such as: (23)To be the top student, you should study, do homework, and get higher marks.
There is often a problem of overlap between two-part lists with the textual function of contrast, which is another textualconceptual function discussed by Jeffries (2010). The two items of the list may be totally different and contrast each other, and in this case, readers should again depend on the pragmatic meaning of such lists.
When it comes to the ideological effect of exemplifying and enumerating, most religious, political and advertising texts seem to favor the three-part list to indicate completeness but not comprehensiveness especially by using the "catch-all category" to cover anything that has not been mentioned. This is because human beings psychologically favor three in a list, producing a symbolic list with a stronger impact than a real longer list (Jeffries, 2015: 395, andJeffries, 2007: 123).
Contrastively, lists with three items or more can be used to indicate literal and explicit completeness. In other cases, speakers or writers give examples and deliberately hide some entities. For example, a politician mentions some things and precludes one or two; this would entail that there is something about this certain entity that this politician is trying to hide. Therefore, the hearer or reader can figure out what other items are being left out. This would help give insights into the person's interests or affiliations.
It is easier and more structurally defined to identify instances of exemplifying and enumerating than other textual functions. This textual function often contains conjunction such as and or or listing some items.

Hypothesizing
This section deals with the ideology in regard to the aspect of modality that is used to introduce hypothetical or alternative situations that are dependent on the view of speakers or writers of how the world is or how it might be and how they wish it were or how it should be, which is conceptual. Thus, modality is used to encode the speakers'/writers' viewpoint. This includes elements of doubt or uncertainty and certainty, but even a sentence like, (24) I'm sure economic cars do not cost much.
Although seems is an example of certainty, it produces a degree of doubt. This is because the sentence introduces a hypothetical situation where car prices are not high because it could be a kind of opinion about the truth or only a desired opinion by the writer or speaker. Other sentence situations like the following introduce a degree of doubt or uncertainty: (25) Car prices may be high.
Structuring of modality can be expressed in two ways; through modal auxiliaries (can, could, will, would, etc.) whose meaning is relevant to the context in which they occur, such as: The second way of expressing modality is through other constructions like: • To explain this model a little more, the modality has mainly two kinds. One is an epistemic modality which is related to the range of certainty whether strong or weak, which speakers express as in the above examples. The second main category of modality is related to the desirability of something expressed by speakers, and is divided into two subcategories: obligation, known as deontic modality, and desire, known as boulomaic modality. The figure below is drawn to show both kinds

Epistemic (certainty)
Car Prices may be high Car prices must be high Desirability deontic You must work hard boulomaic I hope you would not do that Jeffries (2010) gives insights on the model of modality discussed by Halliday (1985) which is mostly used in critical approaches to language, but she relies on Simpson's (1993) model which brought together insights from earlier models to address textual point of view. Modality directly introduces or expresses the viewpoint of speakers/writers; it links the listener/reader directly to the speaker/writer. Therefore, the receivers would believe what is said or written if the source of information is reliable. For example, no one would believe it if an ordinary man claims something like: (28) Apple juice cannot be good for diabetic people as some claim.
However, if a famous doctor goes on TV and states the same thing, most people would tend to believe what he/she says because our mainstream ideology is to believe doctors and follow their advice. The same thing happens when a highly known figure implants something in the minds of people or alters their ideology. Thus, this depends on what the receiver thinks of the producer of the speech. Sometimes, well-known newspapers make claims without any evidence, such as: (29) We think that the government is spying on people.
Such claims, like the one in Example (29), are free from legal pursuit because it merely expresses what the newspaper thinks; it does not necessarily have to be true, although it implants an idea in the minds of receivers even if it is not true at all. This technique of using constructions such as I believe, I think, I have been told, etc. is related to hedges to protect the speaker/writer from legal pursuits. Therefore, this can also be exploited to persuade, manipulate, or change people's ideology, sometimes used to even cause harm.
However, there are other ways through which users express their viewpoints, for example: (30) I hate that the government spies on people.
(31) It is shameful to fail at school.
(32) The professor giggled in agreement.
Example (30) is an obvious case of dislike, while Example (31) is a statement of opinion; other people might not consider it shameful to fail at school. However, Example (32) is an instance of connotation where the professor might have giggled sarcastically. The reader can notice that these are only personal evaluations or opinions. In general, this tool of analysis is mostly semantic because it depends on the modal meaning of utterances stated by producers as they try to express their attitudes, opinions, or ideology, which can be an obvious example of the personal/ interpersonal meta-function of language discussed by Halliday's systemic functional grammar. These opinions or ideologies can become naturalized over time and after repetitive use.
Sometimes, people tend to accept the kind of ideologies produced by those who are generally accepted as authorities, such as Trump, for example: Here, Trump creates a hypothetical situation where immigrants do not like America. He uses an instance of modality which is an obvious way of disliking the immigrants. This example (33) is more persuading and appealing to many Americans who consider Trump, their leader. It is hard to ignore such utterance and due to the simplicity and directness of the language used, it has a good chance to gain those people's support. To many people, this example could be seen to have a connotation, for example, maybe he does not like immigrants, and he wants to kick them out of America. Other examples are not necessarily manipulative. They could be as merely as a wish by the producer, such as:

(34) If only I had more money…
Since this tool of analysis presents a hypothetical situation and speakers' viewpoints, it could be considered a way of speaking loudly by speakers/writers. It is after all a way of expressing viewpoints. This is the case with the tools that have been discussed so far in this paper. For this reason, this paper is entitled "Speaking Loudly". However, it is not strictly speaking but also thinking loudly through language or linguistic choices.

Methodology
This section deals with the method, sample and model of analysis adopted in this paper.

Method
The methods adopted in this study are both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative method is used to fulfil objectives stated in the introduction, such as what ideologies Shakespeare's language exhibits, how Shakespeare uses language ideologically to influence, and how the tools are used to deliver such ideologies through language in accordance with critical stylistics modal. However, the quantitative method is adopted to show how many times these textual-conceptual functions or tools have been used. The frequency of use could function as evidence of the use and existence of ideology. Thus, the quantitative method is intended to supplement the qualitative analysis. In this respect, soliloquies are analyzed qualitatively first and then quantitatively in the section of analysis.

Sample
This study is intended to analyze soliloquies taken from Shakespeare's tragic play Hamlet. Hamlet is a tragic play about a young prince named Hamlet whose own brother wrongfully kills his father. The father is also named King Hamlet and his murderer brother is named Claudius. Prince Hamlet knows that he has to avenge his father but hesitates, leading to his tragic downfall. The soliloquies that are selected for analysis are the first two soliloquies made by the character of Prince Hamlet. The lines of the soliloquies are given the same numbers as in the play. The first soliloquy is taken from Act 3, Scene 1 lines 57-91. The second soliloquy is taken from Act 3, Scene 3, Lines (74-97). They are entitled Hamlet-1 and Hamlet-2.

Proposed Model
Since the modal of analysis (critical stylistic) has been introduced previously, only three textual-conceptual functions are adopted in this study. These three functions are: Representing Actions/ Events/ States; Exemplifying and Enumerating; and Hypothesizing.

Critical Stylistic Analysis of Hamlet-1 (57) To be, or not to be? That is the question-(58)
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer (59) The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep-(62) The soliloquy, Hamlet-1, starts by the use of a relational verb to express intent as if Hamlet had a choice to make. In the same line, the speaker uses hypothesizing to ask if it is noble for a prince to suffer. In line (59), Shakespeare uses an enumerating by 'and' and goes on using enumerating to line (61). In line (60), the writer uses a material action verb to express intention. Line (61), also uses two material action verbs to express intention. The overall ideology of the previous lines is that it is not noble for a prince to suffer; any prince should be resolute without hesitation, but here Hamlet seems passive, thinking of a way to escape or avoid his troubles. So far, Shakespeare writes in a very common language, not a language of people with high stature.

Critical Stylistics Model
Propsed by Jeffries (2010) Textual-Conceptual Functions The tools of analysis Representing Actions/ Events/ States adopted from Simpson (1993) Exemplifying and Enumerating Hypothesizing Shakespeare uses enumerating, line (62), and then end which is a material action verb. Lines (63-65) employ enumerating. Here again, the ideology is that sleeping is seen as the same as dying; this is to ideologically affect the reader to intake the idea of death and conceptualize it as a way to escape troubles and sympathize with the hero of the play. Shakespeare implies that Hamlet could go on suffering but he decides to end his troubles.  (66 and 67) is used to express uncertainty. So far, the ideology has not changed. The soliloquy from its beginning promotes death and that it should be accepted as an outlet. Death in any society is considered almost a taboo subject which is not to be taken lightly, but here Shakespeare shows that the hero has no other choice but it is not really a choice as much as destiny. The writer tries to affect the reader to accept such ideology and to excuse the hero if he commits suicide. Shakespeare tries to show that Hamlet has a choice and has control over his life, but in fact he does not. In line (68), the speaker uses a material action verb "shuffled off" to show control over his life instead of using a Supervention verb, as if he had the power to get rid of life. For example, the sentence could be constructed in another way such as "when we pass away". The ideology of this life is that it is not eternal. Many earthly religions argue that there is another life after death and that this life is only a passage through.

(71) For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, (72)
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns (75) That patient merit of th' unworthy takes, These lines start with hypothesizing extending to line (74). This creates a hypothetical situation where a rhetorical question is made using the modal auxiliary would to express improbability. The verb used is a material action verb. Lines (71-74) uses enumerating of negative ideologies. This is to cause an ideological effect on the reader through repetition. These ideologies are of everyday life, oppressors are always wrong, proud men are rude, unrequited love hurts, justice is not served, etc. Combining several textual-conceptual functions surely causes greater ideological effect and Shakespeare deliberately lists such ideologies. Hamlet speaks as if he were a common person like any other common person although he is a prince and heir to the throne.
(76) When he himself might his quietus make (77) With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscovered country from whose bourn (81) No traveler returns, puzzles the will (82) And makes us rather bear those ills we have (83) Than fly to others that we know not of?
In line (76), the intentional material action verb emphasizes the idea that one can take his own life with only a bodkin. This kind of ideology implies that it does not take much to commit suicide and, as mentioned before, this soliloquy promotes the idea of death instead of life. Only weak people see death as an escape from their problems. Shakespeare, of course, intends to show that a prince like Hamlet is as weak as any other human being. Line (78) uses enumerating of two verbs grunt and sweat that belong to a Supervention category to imply that suffering is rather imposed on Hamlet as he cannot control the action. The verb puzzle is a mental process verb, particularly mental cognition, to represent the action although there is no human agency. Lines (82-83) use five verbs; make, bear and fly are material action verbs, and have is a possessive relational verb. This entails that inanimate actors control the patient which is the speaker himself, while know is a mental cognition verb. The ideology in these lines is the same as the previous lines; Hamlet is being controlled and tries to justify his position.

(84) Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, (85) And thus the native hue of resolution (86)
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment (88) With this regard their currents turn awry, (89) And lose the name of action.-Soft you now, The fair Ophelia!-Nymph, in thy orisons (91) Be all my sins remembered.
The verb used in line (84) is a material action verb that entails imposition on the patient though the actor is inanimate. In line (87), enumerating is used. Passive voice is used in line (86) to focus on the verb phrase sicklied over… to prioritise it. Therefore, the subject of the passive is put forward, which makes this subject rather already known to the reader. Line (88) uses an Event process 'turn awry' but line (89) uses a Supervention to indicate the absence of control over the action. In the last line, Hamlet states that he has sins and asks Ophelia to pray for him. The ideology here is that people are blessed with conscience and natural braveness through which they make their decision, but the fear of death makes Hamlet a coward. In addition to thinking so much, which is compared to sickness, is also a hinder to what Hamlet wants to accomplish.
Since the qualitative analysis of Hamlet-1 has been tackled, now the statistical analysis should be attended to. Table (1) below shows the results obtained from the statistical analysis of Hamlet-1.

Chart (1) Frequency Analysis of Hamlet-1 (Act 3, Scene 1 lines 57-91).
Representing Actions/Events/States 63.0% Exemplifying and Enumerating 24.6% Hypothesizing 12.3% As seen in the table and the chart above, there is disparity in the number of the instances of textual-conceptual functions. Representing Actions/Events/States is the most used function in the text while the other functions are less used. This can be justified by arguing that each sentence must contain a verb phrase, where verbs can be employed; this verb represents the situation of the sentence. It can be claimed that all soliloquies are a kind of verbalization process because they are only a speech without any action going on at the moment of uttering them. However, this cannot determine what kind of ideology is intended by the writer. Further, most of the verbs used in the soliloquy are material action verbs that are supposed to show intent, will, and control; Hamlet is not in control. Enumerating is also used to add an ideological effect by listing the things that make Hamlet afraid and hesitant. This soliloquy also has ideological underpinnings to religion, as Hamlet references things such as mortal coil, sins, prayers, etc.
In the soliloquy, the speaker wants his ideology to be taken in by the reader. The overall ideology of Hamlet is that he seeks to be excused from committing suicide which is a sin that God cannot forgive. Hamlet is not religious because he is not afraid of going to hell if he commits suicide; he is afraid of what dreams might come after death as to say he is afraid of death, not punishment. He also wants to be excused for his hesitation, but in doing so he shows that he is not in control of anything. The reader, of course, can see that Hamlet, although he is a prince, is a normal human being like anyone else. He's not brave; anyone else could have done more than just hesitating. This implies that Shakespeare probably did this on purpose; Shakespeare wants to show people that even princes are as normal as other people; royal people have sins and are not in any way perfect.

Critical Stylistic Analysis of Hamlet-2
Now, a qualitative analysis of Hamlet's second soliloquy (Hamlet-2)in Act 3, Scene 3, Lines (74-97) is carried out. The numbering of the lines is taken from the play. To heaven.
The soliloquy starts with the verbs do, pray, kill, and send which are material action verbs to express will. But this is based on the hypothesizing expressed through the modal auxiliary might which expresses uncertainty. Hamlet thinks that if he kills Claudius, Claudius goes to heaven because he is praying at that moment. In their ideology, if one is killed while he is praying, then that person goes to heaven despite the wrongdoings he had done in the past. In line (76), enumerating and a question are used to imply that this does not fulfill Hamlet's wish for revenge, and also hypothesizing is used to show that it is unfair for Hamlet. The verb kill in line (77) is a material action verb which expresses will with premeditated intent to kill. The crime is unforgiveable. And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?
Enumerating is used in (80) to combine hire and salary; Hamlet kills Claudius while praying. Hamlet might have done Claudius a favor, not revenge; this is obvious through the use hypothesizing. In line (81), Shakespeare also uses a material action verb took. This verb implies that Claudius took something that wasn't his, which is his brother's life and throne while enjoying life and having sins that he had not yet repented for. Hamlet says that although he is killed wrongfully, his father is being punished in the afterlife for his sins. The ideology here is that kings have many sins and they keep committing sins, and when they are done with lavishing themselves, they repent, pray, and ask for forgiveness. It is a common ideology that when people repent, pray, and ask for forgiveness, they are forgiven and they go to heaven when they die.
(84) But in our circumstance and course of thought (85) 'Tis heavy with him. And am I then revenged (86) To take him in the purging of his soul (87) When he is fit and seasoned for his passage? (88) No.
Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent. In line (84), Hamlet seems sure of his father's sins and that they are heavy or serious through relation intensive verb. This entails that his father lived a life of sinful luxury since Hamlet is confessing it himself although his father died recently whom he could have idealized. Passive voice is used in line (85) to emphasize the action of killing; the subject of the complement phrase is left out which makes it marginal, The verb take in line (86) is a material action verb, and Shakespeare uses hypothesizing without the use obvious indicators to imply that Hamlet is making excuses to postpone the action. The excuse now is that Claudius is praying or purging his soul, which guarantees his going to heaven. Line (87) uses relation intensive verb to show that Hamlet will take Claudius at the right time, not now. Would he be forgiven? There is a false ideology here; Hamlet thinks that Claudius might go to heaven. But most religions agree that murder is a great crime and is not forgiven by God. Hamlet then, in line (89), hesitates and waits for a better moment. He expresses it through an implied order to his sword to put itself away and a mental cognition verb. The sword here is treated as an animate being that has consciousness and cognition. This is emphasized through the use of the mental cognition verb know. Mental awareness is the ability of animate conscious beings. Hamlet wants to wait for a better moment until Claudius commits more horrible sins or Hamlet wants to wait until he develops more horrible intentions to send Claudius straight to hell and not heaven. In both cases, Hamlet wants Claudius to suffer. The ideology here is that revenge is justified but delayed and that scheming against a schemer is also justified.

(90)
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, The reference of this murder to the first crime in the history of humanity is to cause a powerful ideological effect on the reader to coin within the lines, an ideology that killing in the name of revenge is excused and forgiven. However, in the law of religion, any kind of unrighteous killing is an unforgiveable sin. The ideology in this soliloquy is so powerful to alienate Hamlet from Claudius in a way that even the reader drops the use of 'uncle' and uses the name 'Claudius'; family ties are no longer considered since Claudius has killed king Hamlet. At the same time, Hamlet thinks that he has every right to kill Claudius but he is contradicting himself; in the first soliloquy he hates that justice is delayed and in the second soliloquy, he is hesitating to get justice for his father's murder by only fantasizing of killing Claudius although Hamlet is angry and sad. The intention of this soliloquy is to sympathize with and excuse Hamlet not to make the mistakes he has made. Since the qualitative analysis is tackled, next the statistical analysis is considered. In both soliloquies, Hamlet uses enumerating through listing without exemplifying. Hamlet enumerates more than four in a list as if he were making complete lists of things. In both soliloquies, Hamlet is seen as a normal human being like any of us; he is passive and only expresses what pains him rather than acting upon his thoughts of revenge. Perhaps Shakespeare wants to show people that even kings and royal figures have mistakes, sins, and fears.

Findings
It has been noticed that there is a great discrepancy in the use of different textual functions but the same textual function in the first and second soliloquy have close percentages. Moreover, most verbs used in these soliloquies are material action verbs to express intent and volition, but in some cases, the speaker does not control the action at all. This is a technique used to show that the characters cannot control their fate, as in the case of Hamlet.
Shakespeare does not use many instances of exemplifying but uses several instances of listing or enumerating. Mostly, Shakespeare uses lists of two in a list, except in Hamlet's first soliloquy in lines (72-75) where he lists several instances in one list because he feels frustrated. Such listing is often used to cause more ideological effect and as a tool to convince. Furthermore, Hypothesizing is the least used textual function. Most instances of hypothesizing are used to express modality, deontic modality and epistemic modality. Most cases are instances of deontic modality to express obligation, such as the death of Claudius. Thus, Shakespeare's language exhibits dangerous ideologies because most of them try to justify the killing of other people.

Conclusion
This study has aimed at studying hidden and apparent ideology within literary texts and has done so by applying Jeffries' (2010) model of critical stylistics to selected soliloquies from Hamlet by William Shakespeare. This is done so objectively in Shakespeare's soliloquies in Hamlet, which is addressing the main problem of this study. However, to answer the question stated in the abstract on Shakespeare's ideology, it can be definitely noticed that Shakespeare's language is ideologically packed. The study has also come to a few conclusions mentioned.
Through ideology, language can be used to plant fear, doubt, trust, etc., in the mind of listeners or readers and this is one of the most powerful influencing effects that a language can have. Shakespeare surely employs language in all its power to produce such effects; the main aim of Hamlet is effect through catharsis. Representing Actions/Events/States 56.8% Exemplifying and Enumerating 27.2%