Diction, Sound and Tone in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus: A Stylistic Analysis of Act One and the Place of Close Reading in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62497/irjai.269Keywords:
stylistics, Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, graphological level, lexical level, phonological level, grammar, artificial intelligence, AIAbstract
Introduction: Stylistics studies the linguistic features of a text in order to understand how a writer creates and transmits meaning. Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus (A-text, 1604) is one of the best-known Elizabethan tragedies, yet its language has seldom been described systematically at more than one level of stylistic analysis.
Objective: This study examines the diction and tone of Act One of Doctor Faustus through graphological, grammatical/lexical, and phonological analysis and considers what this kind of close reading means at a time when artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used to analyze literary style.
Method: The study is qualitative. Act One (the Prologue and Scenes 1–4) of Kastan’s edition of the A-text was read closely, and its features were identified and interpreted at three levels of stylistic analysis.
Results: At the graphological level, Act One contains 90 speaking turns; every verse line opens with a capital letter, and punctuation is used to list, to pause, to join clauses, to mark elision and possession, and to express strong feeling. At the grammatical/lexical level, Marlowe combines plain words with learned and Latin expressions, Early Modern verb forms, inverted word order and compounds such as new-found and arch-regent, and nouns dominate the opening soliloquy. At the phonological level, the serious scenes are written in blank verse (iambic pentameter) and the comic scenes in prose, with alliteration and assonance adding emphasis. The tone moves between ambition, satire and dark foreboding.
Conclusion: Marlowe’s diction is learned and wide-ranging but direct, and his tone shifts with the moral situation of the scene. Many of the features described here could be counted by AI tools, but their meaning depends on context, period and performance, which still requires close human reading.
References
Stockwell P, Whiteley S, editors. The Cambridge handbook of stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139237031
Leech G. Language in literature: style and foregrounding. London: Routledge; 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846125
Wales K. A dictionary of stylistics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge; 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833507
Cheney P, editor. The Cambridge companion to Christopher Marlowe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521820340
Jeffries L, McIntyre D. Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511762949
Simpson P. Stylistics: a resource book for students. London: Routledge; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203496589
Miall DS, Kuiken D. Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: response to literary stories. Poetics. 1994;22(5):389-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5
Short MH. Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama. Applied Linguistics. 1981;2(2):180-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.2.180
McIntyre D. Point of view in plays: a cognitive stylistic approach to viewpoint in drama and other text-types. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.3
Culpeper J. Language and characterisation: people in plays and other texts. London: Routledge; 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315839349
Gul S, Saeed K, Tariq N. Stylistic analysis of Ode to the West Wind by PB Shelley. Global Language Review. 2021;6(2):310-6. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(VI-II).33
Rahim S, Tanveer M. An investigation of stylistic strategies in Wole Soyinka’s Telephone Conversation. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review. 2025;9(1):234-41. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2025(9-I)22
Amjad U, Waheed S. A stylistic analysis of Mohsin’s The End of Innocence. Journal of Development and Social Sciences. 2024;5(3):135-47. https://doi.org/10.47205/jdss.2024(5-III)13
Al-Khalili RK, Jameel J. George Bernard Shaw’s Arms and the Man: a stylistic analysis. Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies. 2019;3(1):246-56. https://doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol3no1.19
Burrows J. ‘Delta’: a measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 2002;17(3):267-87. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.3.267
Hoover DL. Testing Burrows’s Delta. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 2004;19(4):453-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/19.4.453
Stamatatos E. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009;60(3):538-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21001
Eder M, Rybicki J, Kestemont M. Stylometry with R: a package for computational text analysis. The R Journal. 2016;8(1):107-21. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-007
Craig H, Kinney AF, editors. Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605437
Segarra S, Eisen M, Egan G, Ribeiro A. Attributing the authorship of the Henry VI plays by word adjacency. Shakespeare Quarterly. 2016;67(2):232-56. https://doi.org/10.1353/shq.2016.0024
Mikros G. Beyond the surface: stylometric analysis of GPT-4o’s capacity for literary style imitation. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 2025;40(2):587-600. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaf035
Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. p. 610-23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Marlowe C. Doctor Faustus: a two-text edition (A-text, 1604; B-text, 1616): contexts and sources, criticism. Kastan DS, editor. New York: W. W. Norton; 2005.
Görlach M. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166010
Marcus LS. Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton. London: Routledge; 1996. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203424445
Lass R, editor. The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 3, 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761
Piotrowski M. Natural language processing for historical texts. San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool; 2012. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00436ED1V01Y201207HLT017
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Said Hussain Shah, Ubaid Ullah Khan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
