Halberstadt 1
Suzanne Halberstadt
Professor Bleck
Shakespeare 220
21 February 2011
The Feminine Language of Twelfth Night
Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night is a comedy that shows the viewer that marriage is the force
that is required to constrain chaos and place the temporal world back in correct order. Through an
outlandish set of events which include a shipwreck, cross dressing, trickery, imprisonment and the
reappearance of a dead brother, Shakespeare weaves a tale that reveals this scheme. Jean Reid Norman
in her article “Can She Talk the Talk? What Speech Patterns Say About Viola/Cesario” examines the
patterns of speech of both male and female characters to determine if Viola, when disguised as Cesario,
also dons the speech pattern of a man. Delving into the linguistics and grammar used so masterfully by
Shakespeare is a fascinating topic to explore with relation to gender roles and speech patterns ascribed
during the Elizabethan era. To discover if the words and gender characteristics Shakespeare employed
for Viola when speaking as herself are the same as when she is playing Cesario necessitates an
investigation of passages spoken by characters of both sexes. If Shakespeare adopted the male voice for
Viola’s portrayal of Cesario, then the resolution brought about in the final act of Twelfth Night would
not be possible. The feminine voice is a crucial element of Viola’s persona, regardless of her
appearance to the other characters in the play.
Norman notes that when critics look as the play through the lenses of gender and language, the
two topics are kept separate. Shakespeare’s plays are full of unique speech patterns exhibited by his
characters. In available comparisons of gender characteristics the findings of the research indicate the
difference is not in syntax or word choices for characters, but are of word use. Her article is to reason
Halberstadt 2
that there are no lexical changes of Viola’s speech when she is disguised as Cesario and the distinction
between male and female characters is made in the way in which female characters use metaphors that
are indicative of their sex. To determine if the sex of a character could be discovered by text alone a
blind test was given to graduate students and a professor. This test proved that the gender of the
character was not apparent to the readers in approximately half of the passages.
With no clear answer coming from the text of the play, Norman consulted previous research.
Robin Lakoff’s research was consulted. Lakoff discovered specific speech patterns attached to
vocabulary and grammar that are both feminine and neutral. Female speakers determine when to employ
the two modes of speaking. An alternate decoding method of Ellen Barton is that of “rich feature
analysis”. The analysis utilizes the entire text to determine the context of speech first and then looks at
passages spoken by individual characters to decode the rich features of language. Deborah Tannen
found several other differences in speech based on gender. Tannen notes that men are abstract in their
speech while females are specific. Men are also apt to use violent language while this feature is not
present with females. Tannen found women speak utilizing vague language in regards to preferences
and decisions, while men employ the same tact in regards to emotions and relationships.
The modern work of Lakoff shows that women speak the “language” of both women and men,
using a female language with other women and a neutral language when men are present. Norman notes
that in the play the women are always in mixed company so the difference is not apparent. Another
consideration she mentions is that women of Shakespeare’s time may not have used a type of language
spoken only in the company of other women. Barton’s “rich features” approach to language proves
futile when analyzing the play. The difference in the word choice of Viola is based on class, not gender,
according to Norman.
Halberstadt 3
Norman found Tannen’s research is best method applicable to decode the contrasts of gender
speech based on subject, abstraction and specificity of language used by characters. The men of the play
use violent language. Female use of violent language is either mitigated or passive. In comparison of
language used by Viola and Sebastian in regards to the assumed death of the other, Viola is hopeful and
passive while Sebastian uses violent language in the description of love for the other. Viola’s language
is slightly modified when playing Cesario. She continues to use passive words but is more assertive.
Cesario’s metaphors lack the savage language employed by men. In expressing her own love felt for
Orsino while she is Cesario, she speaks of that love in steadfast and enduring terms. Orsino, however,
when speaking of his feelings of love speaks of it as being an overpowering force. The most powerful
example of the male use of violent language appears at the end of the play. When Orsino is rejected by
Olivia for the final time and he discovers that Cesario (Sebastian) has married Olivia, Orsino threatens
Cesario with death. Olivia, in contrast, offers herself in exchange.
Male and female speech in regards to relationships follow a vague to precise pattern according to
Norman. Men in the play speak of love in the 3rd person, while women speak in the 1st or 2nd person. In
Viola’s passages pertaining to feelings she is specific. Orsino does the opposite. This characteristic is
seen with Maria and Sir Toby also. When the two characters talk about Sir Andrew, Toby speaks of his
outer physical traits while Maria talks of Andrew’s personality. The pattern is repeated with Maria and
Feste speaking about the repercussions for Feste’s absence. Maria speaks of specific emotions while
Feste speaks in generalizations.
Norman states the choice of Viola’s male persona allows her to be the form of a male with
female language patterns. Cesario’s masculinity is not questioned because he is an eunuch. The ability
of Viola to use female language patterns allows her to win the love of both Olivia for her brother
Sebastian and Orsino for herself. This feat would have not been possible any other way. Characters in
Halberstadt 4
the play stay true to their gender identity through metaphor for males and concrete language foe females.
Viola’s use of the female language while Cesario helps Olivia to return to society as well as charts her
own way to a future that would otherwise not be attainable.
Viola, although she assumes the clothes and appearance of a man when she is playing the part of
Cesario, keeps her feminine voice. One would think that Shakespeare would alter her language when
Viola presents herself as Cesario and would provide Viola with the potent word choice attributed to
male characters to make her transformation complete. However, this is not the tact Shakespeare adopts.
When Viola is wooing Olivia on Orsino’s behalf she describes Orsino’s raging and passionate love for
Olivia in softer terms:
Halloo your name to reverberate hills,
And make babbling gossip of the air
Cry out ‘Olivia!’ O, you should not rest (1.5.241-43)
Viola uses the word “babbling” to describe the gossip, rather than a stronger adjective such as “torrid” or
“burning”. These alternate word choices would uphold the violent urgency of Orsino’s feelings for
Olivia. Instead, Viola makes the audience experience a cool voice and the gentle murmuring of Olivia’s
name. According to Norman, “Viola consistently takes abstract ideas and makes them specific” (73).
Viola names Olivia in this passage as a direct recipient of the gossip. If Viola was speaking as a man,
Olivia would be referred to with an indirect word choice. The tone of this passage entices Olivia to fall
in love with Cesario. Without Olivia’s exposure to Viola’s feminine voice the marriage between
Sebastian and Olivia would not have occurred. Olivia rejects the raucous missives of love from Orsino.
Only the womanly voice offered by Viola could bring Olivia back from despair and allow Olivia to reemerge in society and restore order.
Halberstadt 5
Orsino, when speaking of his feelings of love, utilizes words that have a increasingly
impassioned words:
Alas, their love may be called appetite,
No motion of the liver, but the palate,
That suffer surfeit, cloyment, and revolt. (2.4.95-97)
He uses the term “revolt” to describe his passion for Olivia, a term of blazing conflict that burns in the
mind of the audience members. According to Norman men in the play, “practice love that conquers all”
(71). For Orsino, love is a battle to be won. The consistent use of words of conflict by Orsino to
describe emotions is in opposition with Viola’s subdued language spoken as Cesario. This further
illustrates the difference between male and female speech. The contrasting language is what keeps
Olivia from emerging from her sorrow. She recoils from the masculine entreaty of Orsino as it lacks
tenderness and nurturing. If Viola was, in truth, a man Shakespeare would use a completely different
language for her. In turn, Viola would have driven Olivia away from Cesario and the marriages that
restore order would not have happened.
Language is powerful weapon. If words are not carefully wielded, they can be destructive. In
Twelfth Night Olivia was in need of a comforting voice to guide her back into public life. Shakespeare
bestowed Cesario with the female voice, the true voice of Viola and the only one that would allow the
chaos to be reconciled. The masculine language used by Orsino is rough and not conducive to the
condition of Olivia’s grieving heart. Viola, on the other hand, was equipped and able to reach into the
depths of Olivia’s emotions. Upon the return of Viola’s twin Sebastian, Olivia was ready for marriage.
Cesario could then re-emerge as the female Viola. The marriage of Viola to her true love, Orsino, was a
direct result of the pairing of Olivia to Sebastian. To set the world back right, Shakespeare gave Viola
the words necessary to resolve her gender inconsistencies through marriage.
Halberstadt 6
Works Cited
Norman, Jean Reid. “Can She Talk the Talk? What Speech Patterns Say About Viola/Cesario..” Journal
of the Wooden O Symposium 7 (2007): 65-76. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.