A Critical Discourse Study of Shakespeare’s Theological Conceptions in Acts IV and V of Richard II : The ‘Divine Mandate’ of Richard Kingship Falls Apart

: This article studies the rebellious Shakespeare’s politico-religious discourse in the Renaissance England. An appropriated interdisciplinary blend of Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA) is employed to lay bare the discursive strategies appropriated by William Shakespeare to safely express his pragmatic philosophy of politics and religiosity in Acts 4 and 5 of Richard II . This study attempts to bring together linguistic, sociocognitive, and critical metaphorical aspects in one single CDA framework. Serving methods and tools of analysis from various well-known CDA approaches such as Fairclough (1989 and 1995), Van Dijk (1993 and 2001), and the Critical Metaphor Analysis (henceforth CMA) model (e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) are selected to fulfil the aims of analysis. The horrendous fate of King Richard II is an exemplar that evidently embodies Shakespeare’s preach of political pragmatism against a deep-rooted holistic system of politico-religious justified by alleged divine regencies.


Introduction
Within a context of competing orthodoxies over Shakespeare's religious thoughts dangling between Catholicism and Protestantism, faith and reason, the religious and the secular, this article takes a side of conceiving Shakespeare's dramatic shape of religion as a subversive version of theology. The purpose of this research is to linguistically investigate how Shakespeare conceptualises current religious creeds and the way they are inculcated by established power structures. The present study believes that Shakespeare's religious discourse preaches pragmatism and individual expedient conducts reactively against a holistic system endorsed by alleged divine prescriptions. Dollimore (2004) maintains that censorship of art and literature was considerable at the renaissance time. There was nothing, for instance, more dangerous for a playwright or a poet than to describe a sin because it causes the sin to be less feared and statesmen to lose their reputation. It even extended to direct censorship of plays. The triangle of the church, state, and human beings was the subject matter of the machinery of censorship and control. That devised machinery of censorship whose aim was only to keep the people in obedience and peace went far beyond the suppression of performance. Dramatists, who staged plays thought to be seditious, were harassed or even imprisoned by the state. Hence, according to Dollimore, proper dealing with how Shakespeare negotiates religious currents within such an oppressing culture is not a leisurely task (p. 13).
Referring to the linguistic study of Shakespeare's drama, Alexander (2004) sustains those scholars "used to historicize Shakespeare in every respect except his language […], there are not only ideas about language we miss; there are usages of language we misinterpret because we mistake the nature of language in the Early Modern period" (p. 1). Starting from such an assumption, the present work leans on a linguistic analysis framework to study Shakespeare and Renaissance theology. Discursively, the objectives of this article are submitted to a gradual analysis starting from series of situational linguistic models to series of generalised macro sociocognitive models. Topical models are first inferred from the text, and second submitted to an ascending generalisation toward more contextual personal cognitive models ending with more generic, societal and ideological mental models.
The major purpose of this research is to test the hypothesis about Shakespeare's subversive preoccupations against the prevailing opportunistic religious orthodoxies and against assumed dogmatic ideologies of power relations based on institutional religious legacies. An outline of the fundamental political issues and beliefs that occupied the minds of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras is set in the literature review to trace any impact of the time's religious and political concepts on the Shakespearean stage. Reading through Richard II Act four and 5, this work proposes a critical analysis of the religiously inflected discursive representation of the contemporary rule.
In sum, this article tends to excavate Act four and five of Richard II: KING OF ENGLAND. (2017) to expose Shakespeare's artistically guised criticism of the religiously legitimised power inculcated by institutional dogmatic doctrines. This study is methodologically based on transcending dichotomies of relationships of transfer from, for example, the micro textual structures to the macro, from discourse to action, from the individual to the social, from the situational to the global, and from individual cognition to socio cognition. The ultimate purpose of this article is to display Shakespeare's artistic establishment of a horizontal system of human-human responsibility based on moral accountability which must supersede the inculcated system of power relations justified by an alleged representation of God on Earth. Weiss and Wodak (2003) stress that CDA has never been one single theory and has never worked on providing one single or specific methodology of research. They, on the contrary, emphasise a multifaceted CDA model, taking from various kinds of theoretical scopes. CDA specialists rely on diverse grammatical approaches. Weiss and Wodak (2003) refer to the contrastive approaches of, for example, Jim Martin, Teun Van Dijk and Jay Lemke. Even the definitions of terms such as 'discourse,' 'critical,' 'ideology,' and 'power' are also manifold. Thus, any critical analysis of a given discourse must select the proper CDA approach or method that can be serviceable to the objectives of analysis.

Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis
For doing CDA, Van Dijk (2001) is in favor of diversity; he is against personality cults. He states that he has no intention to offer a ready-made 'method Van Dijk' of CDA. He insists that effective CDA would integrate the best work of various individuals recognised or unknown, from different fields, nations, cultures, and directions of research. He believes that "CDA can be conducted in and combined with any approach and sub-discipline in the humanities and the social sciences" (p. 96). Thus, homogeneity in approach is a tendency that Van Dijk (2001) alerted against because of the multidisciplinary nature of CDA.
Van Dijk (2001) admits that only a broad, diverse, multidisciplinary, and problem oriented CDA will be efficient to study the complex real-world problems reflected in discourse. Given his multidisciplinary orientation, he labels his way of doing CDA as 'sociocognitive' discourse analysis. The study of personal and social cognitions is the key tool in the critical analysis of the discursive, communicative, and interactive representations. He, however, states that the label 'sociocognitive' does not mean that CDA is limited to social and cognitive analysis (p.96). CDA is both a theory and a approach. Academics who are involved in the connection between language and society apply CDA to serve them describe, interpret, and explain such relationships (Rogers, 2004, p. 2).
Both text and context have local and global structures. Discourse has micro layers like phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc., and a macro pragmatic social structure. Context, as well, has local and global structures, for instance, a setting (time, location, and circumstances), and participants with their social and discursive varied roles (speakers), intentions, purposes, etc. (Van Dijk, 1997, p. 19). Gee (2011) states that context is mandatory to understand language in use and to determine the appropriate kind of discourse analysis. Meanings left unsaid can only be inferable from context. Speakers and writers rely on audience members and readers to use the context to fill in the meanings assumed but left unstated. Even a simple utterance like "The paper is on the table" requires the interlocutor to infer from context what paper and what table is meant (p.100).
Both text and context have local and global structures. Discourse has micro layers like phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc., and a macro pragmatic social structure. Context, as well, has local and global structures, for instance, a setting (time, location, and circumstances), and participants with their social and discursive varied roles (speakers), intentions, purposes, etc. (Van Dijk, 1997, p. 19). Gee (2011) argues that to study language-in-use we need to read beyond language per se, we need to study Discourses. Discourses always involve more than language. They are amalgamations "of words, deeds interactions, thoughts, feelings, objects, tools, times, and places that allow us to enact and recognize different socially situated identities" (p.44). They always imply "coordinating language with ways of acting, interacting, valuing, believing, feeling, and with bodies, clothes, nonlinguistic symbols, objects, tools, technologies, times, and places" (p.46).
According to Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000), "CDA states that discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned. Furthermore, discourse is an opaque power object in modern societies and CDA aims to make it more visible and transparent" (p. 484). Van Leeuwan (2008) maintains that: As discourses are social cognitions, socially specific ways of knowing social practices, they can be, and are, used as resources for representing social practices in text. This means that it is possible to reconstruct discourses from the texts that draw on them… so as to show how elements of social practices enter into texts. (pp. 6-7) Rogers et al. (2005) write that "during the past decade, educational researchers increasingly have turned to CDA as a set of approaches to answer questions about the relationships between language and society" (p. 365). Van Leeuwen (2008) takes the view that "all texts, all representations of the world and what is going on in it, however abstract, should be interpreted as representations of social practices" (p. 5). The sense of the term "discourse" is referred to differently in Foucault (1977). Foucault (1977) refers to Discourse not in the sense of a cohesive and coherent text but in the sense of social cognition. Discursive representations, according to him, are considered as "constructed knowledge of some social practice" appropriated to and developed within special social contexts that can be large or small or highly institutionalised or less so (Foucault, 1977, as cited in Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 6). Halliday (1994) asserts that the higher level of discourse analysis achievement is a contribution to the evaluation of the text: the linguistic analysis may enable one to say why the text is, or is not, an effective text for its own purposesin what respects it succeeds and in what respects it fails or is less successful. This goal [contribution to the evaluation of the text] is much harder to attain. It requires an interpretation not only of the text itself but also of its context (context of situation, context of culture), and of the systematic relationship between context and text. (p. xv) In addition to previewing what is provided about serviceable critical discourse studies, the literature review is to show that, within a context of divinely ordained monarchies and a context of subjects whose duties are only to be submissive to chosen vice-regents of God, it was almost impossible for the time theatre to plainly perform against the monarch. It was almost inconceivable to produce a direct radical drama. It was a far-fetched mission for Shakespeare and his contemporaries to openly criticise and point out perceived flaws. The dramatist managed to produce pertinent allusive linguistic and rhetorical forms with inclinations to subvert the prevailing brand of theology.

Renaissance England and Politics
.
In his speech to parliament on March 21, 1610, King James I claimed that "Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king"1 (as quoted in Dutton and Howard, 2003, p. 125). Draper (1936) states that in Elizabethan England, the memories of the Wars of the Roses, the fast lesson of the religious conflicts in France and Germany, the fear of Spain and of the forward moving Counter-Reformation, and an untrustworthiness of the numerous Roman Catholic nobles, made the commons accept, if not support, Tudor absolutism as the fence of national independence in church and state (p. 61). Monarchy was taken as the form of government "most natural, most workable, and most highly approved by Holy Writ; and the ruler actually took the place of the pope as God's vicar upon earth." Since the reign of Richard II, this theory of Divine Right had been gaining ground (Draper, 1936, p. 62).
A complex discursive form set by Tudor and Stuart monarchs for ages, daringly stated in James's claim -before parliament -"that kings were chosen by God, were like God, and were subject to no man's rule; thus, there could be no justification whereby any citizen or group of citizens could dare to overthrow a legitimate monarch." "Providentialism" received full support of the state propaganda apparatus for over a century, and as "official" discourse was systematically diffused throughout the kingdom, opposition to these principles, rhetorical or actual, received swift and severe blame (Dutton and Howard, 2003, p. 126). In the same line of thought, Dutton and Howard (2003) state that: At the heart of "providentialism" lies the concept of the monarch ruling as the chosen vice-regent of God, independent of the consent of the commons, unrestricted by ecclesiastical authority, outside of and prior to the laws of the kingdom -all summed up in the term, "divine right." (p. 127) To portray extreme claims about the divinely ordained authority, Dutton  Hadfield (2004) insists on talking about the political exploitation of religion in England; he states that varied political treatises issued in the 1590s argued that "monarchy was a divinely ordained institution and that it was the duty of subjects to obey the monarch without question because everyone and everything had its place in the natural order of things." However, subjects were never to feel they should be quite as docile as this; even if most people felt that violent rebellion was necessary and desirable (pp. [4][5][6].

Renaissance England's Literary Politics.
During Henry VIII's reign, the court emerged as a great platform of learning, art and literature. Following a period of long turmoil and chaos, an atmosphere of peace and calm began to prevail paving the way for extraordinary development of literary activity. When EDWARD VI ascended the throne in 1547, he called a halt to censorship. The outcome was a transient burst of all sorts of printing in England. However, Edward got touched on immorality in printed material. In 1551, he announced that all texts had to be approved by the authorities before printing. When MARY I took command in 1553, she halted Protestant reforms and gave rise to Catholicism in England. In 1555, she declared all Protestant writings forbidden (Grendler, 2004, p. 143).
After the Protestant Reformation, both Protestants and Catholics used the printed press to expand their visions; both parties sought to put the press under control. However, in 1559, the pope established the INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS, the most efficient instrument of censorship in the Catholic Church. A list of writers and works that Catholics could not publish, read, or even hold was indexed (Grendler, 2004, p. 142).
Under Elizabethan sovereignty, the government pursued censoring all condemnation of the monarchy. Elizabeth handled the Court of High Commission to curb any kind of obstruction to her religious policies, involving printed criticism. The court enhanced approving works before they turned to press (Grendler, 2004, p. 143).

Renaissance England and Religion
. Dollimore (2004) believes that "no ideology in human history has been more persuasive and persistent than religion" (p. xii). In the Renaissance England, for instance, every aspect of life was almost infiltrated by the religious. According to Hacht (2006), social change due to religion was infiltrating despite the attempts of aristocracy to gain firm control. During the period stretching from the reign of Henry VII to the reign of bloody Mary and then to Queen Elizabeth, the authoritatively tolerated religious practices in England were: shifted from Catholicism to Protestantism to Catholicism and back again; during one reign, practicing Catholics were put to death, while in another, Protestants were persecuted. While Shakespeare lived and wrote during the relatively stable reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, religion remained a much-debated issue. (Hacht, 2006, p. 349) To rule both church and state, traditional apparatus of boosting connections between monarchy and religion gained strength in England after the Reformation for the purpose of asserting the English crown's divine right of sovereignty. A nationalist agenda of Divine-right monarchy was constructed in order to contrive a God-given right of self-rule for England without the intervention of the pope (Groves, 2007, p. 93). Groves (2007) declares that: The more divine the monarch appeared, the more obvious was his or her right to govern in God's stead. This holiness is projected forward onto the real architect of the Reformation, Henry VIII, and binds the English crown to the divine source of its power. (pp. 93-94)

Methodology
A systematic interdisciplinary CDA analysis starting from micro textual analyses and ending with global sociocognitive explanations is the adopted method of research. Adopting a CDA approach based on a methodological integration between three models of known authorities in the domain of discourse studies -Van Dijk (1997, 1998, and 2001), Fairclough (1989Fairclough ( , 1995Fairclough ( , and 2003, and Lakoff and Johnson (1980) -enables this research to translate any pertinent linguistic or rhetorical micro features into a global social issue. Thanks to the practicality of the adopted interdisciplinary CDA framework, Shakespeare's language is first phonologically, semantically, structurally, stylistically, and rhetorically described and interpreted, and then globally explained as reflections of or projections on individual and social mental models.

Van Dijk's event, context and socio cognitive models
Calling for a broad, diverse, multidisciplinary and problem oriented CDA, Van Dijk (2001) draws upon a critical discourse study framework derived from the theoretical triangle discourse-cognition and society. Discourse is here meant in the broad sense of a "communicative event" with all its shapes, including text and talk and all semiotic signs. Cognition, be it personal or social, involves all mental or memory beliefs (background knowledge) and aims, attitudes and feelings. And finally, society is meant interactions including microstructures of situational face to face interactions, as well as, macrostructures of more global societal and political structures manifested in "groups, group relations (such as dominance and inequality), movements, institutions,30 organizations, social processes, political systems and more abstract properties of societies and cultures" (Van Dijk, 2001, p.98).

Event Models
Event models are personal experiential models of life events saved in episodic and long-term memories. In a rough definition, context models control the 'pragmatic' side of discourse and event models govern the 'semantic' field [the textual meaning] (Van Dijk 2001, p 109). Event models are individual life experiences of life incidents and activities stored in episodic and long-term memories.

Context Models
In addition to micro and macro textual meanings, Van Dijk has distinguished between local and global contexts. Local context is introduced in terms of the features of the immediate interpersonal situation (situational scenery, participants…etc) in which a discursive event occurs (van Dijk, 2001, p. 103). Global contexts, on the other side, are determined by the social, political, cultural and historical structures in which a communicative event takes place. Context models are cognitive scenarios "people construct of their daily experiences from getting up in the morning to going to bed at night. Communicative events are just a prominent type of such models of everyday experience" (Van Dijk, 2001, p.109).
Context and event models are mental representations in short term or episodic memories and long-term memories. Episodic remembrance is a part of long-term remembrance in which people store their data and attitudes about episodes they experience or hear or read about (Van Dijk 2001, p 109). In a structured view, context models control the 'pragmatic' plane of discourse and event models control the 'semantic' part (ibid). Drawing on Van Dijk's theory of CDA, this research considers meaning structures and pragmatic dimensions of discourse as episodic schemata of other overall social, political economic… etc. schemata/scripts/ scenarios. Van Dijk (2001) states that "Models form the crucial interface between discourse and society, between the personal and the social. Without such models, we are unable to explain and describe how social structures influence and are affected by discourse structures" (p. 112).

Social Cognition/Sociocognitive models
Discourse, communication and other shapes of practice and interaction are controlled by social cognition. Social cognition or sociocognitive schemas are common knowledge, feel, views, creeds …etc. (Van Dijk, 1993). Social cognitions affect and are implied in and retrieved from micro event and context models. Resnick et al (1991), as cited in Van Dijk (1993), maintain that: Social cognitions intermediate between situational and global levels of society, between discourse and acts and between the discrete and the communal. Although resided in the individuals' mindsets, social cognitions are social because they are mutual and presupposed by social partners, govern cultural move and action, and because they lurk behind the global social and cultural organisations.
Dichotomies of relationships of transfer from, for example, micro to macro, discourse to action, individual to group, situational to social, cognitive to sociocognitive summarise the methodological tendency of Van Dijk in analysing discourse. A section of this research purports to apply Van Dijk's theory of analytical transfer from the very linguistic situational analysis to the pragmatic contextual interpretation ending by the further sociocognitive dimensions of text. The realisation of this approach, in this In addition to the study of semantic structures and lexical style of the text, a survey of rhetorical figures is chosen in this research to study the network of micro and macro mental models constructed to represent Shakespeare's individual, global, and social ideological mindsets directly or indirectly projected on text and stage.

Fairclough's Three-Stage Procedure of Critical Discourse Analysis (Description, Interpretation and Explanation)
Fairclough proposes three related dimensions of discourse analysis: description, interpretation and explanation. In this research, description, i.e. the linguistic analysis of the text, is intertwined with interpretation, which is the analysis of the relationship between the discourse processes and the text. Explanation, on the other side, which is the analysis of the connection between discourse practice and social practice is separately applied. The figure below collectively illustrates the crossing between Van Dijk's adopted mental model and Fairclough's three stages of discourse analysis.

Van Dijk and Fairclough Methodological Crossing
Fairclough's main point of reference in text analysis is Michael Halliday's SFL that is compared to the inter-relational study of discourse and society with Van Dijk. For Fairclough, linguistic and intertextual analyses are two complementary types of analysis. Intertextual analysis bridges the gap between texts and contexts. It displays the internal and dialectical correlation between language and society; it affirms that language is a segment of society, and linguistic structures are social structures. Van Dijk's intertextuality is embedded within the dialectical relationship between text, individual cognition, and socio-cognition. What lacks Fairclough's theory is the notion of cognition.
For discursive analysis, Fairclough (1989) draws a distinction between three stages of CDA: Description of the text, interpretation of the description -to draw a local (textual) context -and explanation which is the global (social) dimension of the text. By analogy, Van Dijk methodologically refers to analytical stages comparable to those of Fairclough. The description stage is similar to Van Dijk's textual micro level/semantic situation model; the Interpretation stage relates to Van Dijk's relationship between the semantic and the textual context; and finally, explanation which addresses the dialectical relationship between the individual and the social cognitions.

Richard II: A Ridiculed 'Representative of God' King
Richard II is a history play whose ground is real historical events. Thematically, Richard II is the unique anointed King of Shakespeare. However, he seems not to be worth owning such a sacral reference. Greatness is conferred on him by heritage and thanks to his uncle who reigned in his stead for a good period of time. Whether Richard deserves to be an anointed king or not is a topic discussed subsequently.
Is Richard II able to resist playing the role of the strong King? Are actions and events enough to drop his mask of rhetorical power? Richard's rhetorical language, his 'glorified' blood, and the halo of the throne enabled him to exert power and weaken the mighty. However, as discussed in some of my previous work, rulers with no natural power are dropped by Shakespeare. Will Richard II make difference? The answer to this question can be provided consequently.

Description and Interpretation.
Act IV and V perfectly stage instructive moral event models drawn from the tragic end of 'baptised' King Richard. These acts provide various pertinent evidence asserting that Richard's 'sacred' diadem is prone to seizure. The crown is inclined to usurpation since its coronated head is of a monarch who believes that 'divine providence' is an unassailable fortress. His violation of moral sanctions ends with having his oiled head dusted by his subjects.
Contrasted to what is expected from a representative of God on earth, Richard has proved and cited by different mouths to be a recklessly irresponsible King deciding on a disintegrated court. His capricious and whimsical governing based on moral and religious considerations and his indifference to the surrounding realpolitik has made him a ridiculed 'Heavenly Regent King.' In the extract below, Richard is referred to by York as "plume-pluck'd Richard."

DUKE OF YORK
Great Duke of Lancaster, I come to thee Richard is referred to as "plume-pluck'd," with a "willing soul" that "adopts" Bolingbroke as "heir"; "his high sceptre 2 yields" to the possession of Bolingbroke's royal hand; his sovereignty descends from him to be ascended by the "Great Duke of Lancaster." York ends with a poetic prayer declaring Bolingbroke King Henry IV: "And long live Henry, fourth of that name!" The communicative event that follows is a shaped mockery scene led by a man of church who has earnestly engaged in a ridiculous defence of a fallen King. Bishop of Carlisle is a representative of the church that is in alliance with the throne. Without intention, he highlighted the triviality of the myth of divine regency by his way of opposing the parliamentary deposition of the 'sacred' King. Bishop of Carlisle accused Bolingbroke of treason and was sent to prison. The lines stated by him below best depict the collapse of the myth of divine commands in Kingship: To highlight the effect of such a 'heresy' deposition, Bishop of Carlisle opted for a lexical cluster of sacred semantic features to consider such a "so heinous, black, [and] obscene" deed as sacrilegious. Bolingbroke and his men who master the Parliament or deposition scene are now to sentence Richard. The subjects are 'heretically' to judge their King. Bishop of Carlisle is driven mad of wrath at the rejection of the established orthodox tenets. He wonders how such a King like Richard is to be judged "by subject and inferior breath"; how come and he is the "figure of God's majesty," and His "captain, steward, deputy-elect." Carlisle cannot believe to see the "anointed, crowned, planted many years" King judged by his subjects.
Citing Armitage et al. (2009) can be a relevant answer to the Bishop of Carlisle. They state that for Machiavelli (1513), for a prince to be virtuous, he or she should demonstrate a genius ability to employ deceit, dissimulation and fear to secure his or her own survival and aggrandizement (pp. 6-7). Religion, for Machiavelli, glorifies rather humble and meditative men than men of acts. This aspect of life, according to him, seems to have caused weakness of the world, and handed it over as prey to the villain, who run it effectively and firmly (Machiavelli, 1513, as cited in Riebling, 1991, p. 284).
What follow are lines citing Richard's lyrical lamentation of his own misfortunes. Short simple sentences, anaphora, and lexemes related to senses, are linguistic features used by Richard to deny himself and wish death. Richard is a King of emotions who submissively surrendered to the orders of destiny. He 'willingly' accepted "the pride of kingly" sway from his heart, the heavy crown from his head, and the "unwieldly sceptre" from his hand. He feels his head uncovered, his hand empty, and his heart void. Anaphora -put in bold below -is his rhetorical instrument used to bitterly convey self-responsibility and artistically magnify lamentations: My manors, rents, revenues I forego;

KING RICHARD II
My acts, decrees, and statutes I deny: God pardon all oaths that are broke to me! God keep all vows unbroke that swear to thee! Make me, that nothing have, with nothing grieved, Studying the grammatical and functional words used in the first five lines above, we notice a prevailing use of prepositions indicating displacement and expiration. The preposition "from" is used three times, "away" is used twice, "off" and "out" are used once. The preposition "from," as an example, indicates the displacement of the "unwieldy" Kingship sceptre from the King's hand, the collocation of the prepositions "from off" fulfils the displacement of the crown, and the collocation of "from out" expresses the cleansing of the kingly pride from Richard's heart.
The second part of the extract above is a rhetoric game of grief the instrument of which is anaphora. The anaphora "With mine own" is reiterated four times heading four sentences; it rhetorically asserts Richard's focus on his bitter self-responsibility. He used anaphora to highlight his torture. He used anaphora to say that his own tears cleanse away his consolation, that his own hands steal away his crown, that his own tongue declines his sacred kingdom, and that his own breath liberates all his duty's practices.
The third part of the extracted passage portrays Richard's bitter loss of assets and properties. Such a parting is expressed in three lexemes belonging to the same semantic paradigm. The three lexemes of forsaking -"forswear," "forego," and "deny" -are structurally put in back positions and their direct objects are located in front positions. In cognitive linguistics, the more important the referent is, the closer it is got to the senses and hence the more it is structurally moved to the foreground.
From this perspective, Richard's structural extrapositions is recorded in the relocation of the direct object "all pomp and majesty" to front position markedly (uncommonly) preceding its subject and its transitive verb "I do forswear." The same patterning is reproduced in: "My manors, rents, revenues I forego, and "My acts, decrees, and statutes I deny." By the end of the passage, Richard closes up praying pardon for his traitors, and empty hands and freedom from any source of grief for himself. Richard's role as a King actor is approaching its humiliating end.
Another event model which breaks down the image of the divine King is Richard's conversation with his wife who expressed her astonishment at the way he reacted -as her 'Great' King -against his deposition by Bolingbroke. The Queen has shown spiritual soundness her King does not possess. She has finally displayed the King's hollow character by showing his empty inward reflections. She has shown that he is but a decoration of a blunt King just sheathed with the inherited halo of a fake and deceitful sanctity.
Her rhetorical questions are informative about her Richard's mind; she is surprised at his reaction asking him whether he is weakened in shape and mind. Indirectly, she is telling him that to be deposed can be destined, but to be mentally and spiritually deposed this is not of genuine Kingship traits.
To convey such a message, the Queen has perfectly exploited stylistic devices enough to artfully contempt the shameful status of the 'great' 'divine' King. She opts for two succinct simulations framed by an artful choice of images. The first image is that of a dying lion, and the second is the image of the pupil afraid of his teacher. Richard is supposed to be a dying lion, but, he does not worth being as such since the dying lion thrusts its paw forward, and at worst wounds the earth with rage. Richard is, on the other hand, so overpowered that he is likened to a pupil kissing his teacher's rod out of fear and submissively corrects his mistakes with base humility: After the humbling deposition scene (Act IV, Scene 1) in which the King is dethroned by his own parliament, two other event models in Act V, Scene 2 summarise the contrast between Richard a strikingly humiliated weak King who has thought to be hedged by divinity and Bolingbroke an illegitimate but a more able King of actions and pragmatic realism. The first event model exposes the usurper Henry VI -Bolingbroke -as a King deserving glory and grandeur. The second event model portrays the anointed King's worst humiliation ever experienced. Shakespeare's concerns are not limited to the issue of divine rights as a central concept, but his focus is more on the individual realism and political pragmatism opposed to theological void prejudices.
Whereas King Richard II has shown an unstable personality and puts total trust in theoretical protections, King Henry IV has provided evidence for a new spirit of assertive individualism. The last two passages cited below, stated by Duke of York, provide the best pictures of contrast between the two Kings: Bolingbroke or King Henry IV and the dethroned Richard II. York's words report how Bolingbroke the man of actions and Machiavellian opportunism has expectedly defeated the man of words and posture:

DUKE OF YORK
Then, as I said, the duke, great Bolingbroke, Mounted upon a hot and fiery steed Which his aspiring rider seem'd to know, With slow but stately pace kept on his course, Whilst all tongues cried 'God save thee, Bolingbroke!' The previously discussed Bolingbroke's pragmatic humble behaviour with the people of England when he was leaving for exile as quoted by Richard himself in Act II, Scene 4 (lines 23-28) is performed again but now as a glorified King riding a fiery horse. Dignifying his new King, York brings to the scene a striking description of Henry VI's public appearance. In the lines above, York sheds a focal view on the King's horse which was in earlier time Richard's horse. The word steed, which means a warhorse, indicates the power and the knighthood of its rider.
Henry IV has dethroned Richard and publicly ridden his steed in challenging self-confidence. The adjectives depicting the steed are rhetorically and symbolically chosen by York. The words "hot" and "fiery" suggest agitation and intense emotions of the horse mounted by "great" Bolingbroke the "aspiring rider." York adds to his report the populace's acknowledgment and recognition: "Whilst all tongues cried 'God save thee, Bolingbroke!'" York continues telling about Richard's tragedy to his duchess saying: You would have thought the very windows spake, So many greedy looks of young and old Through casements darted their desiring eyes Upon his visage, and that all the walls With painted imagery had said at once 'Jesu preserve thee! welcome, Bolingbroke!' (Richard II, In York's words above, the picture of hypocrisy is threefold: a hypocrite court man reporting a hypocrite King greeted by hypocrite subjects. York utilises noun phrases of pejorative senses such as "greedy look," and "desiring eyes" to describe the subjects' perceptions of their new monarch. The subjects' hypocrisy is at once announced in "painted imagery" on walls shouting "'Jesu preserve thee! welcome, Bolingbroke!'" Henry VI's public parade is, on the other hand, reported by the hypocrite Duke of York, the storyteller, as meek and spiritless. The hypocrite new King is bareheaded turning his head right and left "lower than his proud steed's neck," greeting his people: Whilst he, from the one side to the other turning, Bareheaded, lower than his proud steed's neck, Bespake them thus: 'I thank you, countrymen:' (Richard II, V. 2. [12][13][14][15][16][17] The final but probably the most pathetic event model is that of Richard's public appearance after deposition. York's imagery and metaphors of theatre perfectly depict Richard's shift from arrogance to humiliation; this can parenthetically be a simulacrum to King Lear's journey. York utilises a striking simile to perfectly express the situation of the dethroned anointed Richard. Richard is compared by York to a nice-looking actor of irrelevant talk who is lazily bent on by the people's eyes when he re-enters the stage after leaving it. The causes of the audience's disdain are the actor's incessant talk about unimportant matters. By analogy, York states that Richard's audience frowned with displeasure at his verbosity, and no man cried "God save him!":

DUKE OF YORK.
As in a theatre, the eyes of men, After a well-graced actor leaves the stage, Are idly bent on him that enters next, Thinking his prattle to be tedious; Even so, or with much more contempt, men's eyes Did scowl on gentle Richard; no man cried 'God save him!' (Richard II, What is striking with York is his language which skilfully probes the physical and spiritual breakdown of a King who was once the invincible representative of God on earth. Using a language adept at transforming words into recording equipment finer than the best visual and audible equipment, York must have succeeded transmitting the message of the fallible mortal King who must not exclusively be regarded as God's anointed monarch. In the lines below, York resorts to various linguistic items to perfectly portray Richard's tragedy.
York starts with negation to report the absence of any welcoming tongue to the King, but instead his sacred head is covered with thrown dust. He brushes dust with his gentle sorrow; his tears and smiles are his reaction against the badges of his grief and patience. York utilises an expressive hypothetical sentence to depict the atrocity of Richard's plight: that if God had not steeled human's hearts they must definitely have melted. At the end, York stated it plainly that "barbarism itself have pitied him:" No joyful tongue gave him his welcome home: But dust was thrown upon his sacred head: Which with such gentle sorrow he shook off, His face still combating with tears and smiles, The badges of his grief and patience, That had not God, for some strong purpose, steel'd The hearts of men, they must perforce have melted And barbarism itself have pitied him.
But heaven hath a hand in these events, To whose high will we bound our calm contents.
To Bolingbroke are we sworn subjects now, Whose state and honour I for aye allow.

(Richard II, V. 2. 29-40)
To close up with the description and interpretation of Richard II, inferring context models from the previously tackled events can decipher the dramatist's complex mental state that led him to produce precise events and actions. Scenes of contradictory and unstable events invite the local and global audience of drama to theatrical contexts of striking political changes. No one would expect at that time that the unique anointed King of the Shakespearean stage would meet such a humiliating fall. Richard II is dethroned by Bolingbroke, thrown with dust by his subjects, and killed alone in captivity by Lord Exton, in Act V, Scene 5.
Richard was a King of prose and prosody whose weapons are poetry and tears contrasted to Bolingbroke who is a king of power and foxiness. Richard's tragedy is brought forth by the confidence he put in theoretical protection and by his indifference to realpolitik and pragmatic behaviour. His irresponsibility led him to be called the "pluck'd Richard." He was sentenced by his subjects, denied by his closest relatives. Even York, his closest uncle, has totally shifted loyalty and turned to be a story teller of Richard's tragedy for his own and his wife pleasure. Richard II is deposed despite his faith in his status. The drawn lesson from this play is: one should never use religion as a mask to affirm and protect the Self and conceal personal villainous behaviour.

Explanation
. It is true that Shakespeare's Richard II is inspired by the reign of Richard II of England (1377-1399), but the required question is why it is dramatically revived in 1595. One possible answer is because it is told that the story of Richard II was a story of a revolution or a coup d'état. Such a coup d'état could be justifiable since it is against rulers who derive authority from behind deceitful masks of divinity. Referring to the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles -fifth book of the New Testament -, Calvin (2002) states that Saint Paul or Paul the Apostle "leaves it free to him [God] to make kings and magistrates partakers of heavenly doctrine, though in their blindness they rage against it" (p. 604). The idea that kings and magistrates make partakers of heavenly doctrine is central to this research, but what is of more importance is the second half of the quotation "though in their blindness they rage against it." Similarly, Richard's divinity blinders made him a flawed King of vocal charms. Shakespeare regards talk without work as an eloquent irresponsibility amounting to downfall. His arbitrary policies resulted in his displacement by Bolingbroke an illegitimate claimer to the throne but a practical opportunist. Such a topical significance of the play within a given seventeenth and eighteenth centuries' context rose political and ideological disputes and controversies. These issues are target conceptions Shakespeare wanted to bring them to the socio-political magnetic cognitions.
Act I, composed of one scene, called the "deposition scene" or "Parliament scene" was omitted from the play due to censorship systems applied to sage plays. As Elisabeth aged, it got common to associate her to Richard II. Probably, the most famous comparison is stated in her remark to William Lambarde in 1601: "I am Richard II. Know ye not that? (Mayer, 2004, p. 29). Because of censorship, William Shakespeare's King Richard II (1595) was published only in 1608 after Elizabeth's death. Elizabeth sees herself in Richard II, and sees her rival Earl of Essex in Bolingbroke. Earl of Essex paid Shakespeare's own company, the Chamberlain' Men, to perform at the Globe theatre.

Conclusion
A systematic interdisciplinary CDA analysis starting from micro textual analyses and ending with global sociocognitive explanations is the adopted method of research. Adopting a CDA approach based on a methodological integration between three models of known authorities in the domain of discourse studies -Van Dijk (1997, 1998, and 2001), Fairclough (1989Fairclough ( , 1995Fairclough ( , and 2003, and Lakoff and Johnson (1980) -enables this research to translate any pertinent linguistic or rhetorical micro features into a global social issue. Thanks to the practicality of the adopted interdisciplinary CDA framework, Shakespeare's language is first phonologically, semantically, structurally, stylistically, and rhetorically described and interpreted, and then globally explained as reflections of or projections on individual and social mental models. Reading through Richard II, Acts four and five, this work offers a interpretative study of the religiously shaped discursive representation of the time rule.
This play is an almost direct reference to the downfall of the concept of divine providence that maintains the throne of the King and gives him victories. King Richard is the unique anointed King of Shakespeare. Hence, he is the best dramatic subject that can undergo the dramatist's theological experiment. His strength lies in his power of language and his blood lineage. However, such a version of power has been neutralised by Shakespeare's standards. Shakespeare's reference point of eligibility is not limited to rhetorical skills, 'sacred blood' or Baptist anointing. The myth of 'divine mandate of ruling' is dramatically substituted with pragmatism and rightness of conducts, 'blood legitimacy' and alike are overused to be trivialised and even transformed into stage omens of troubles.
Richard's tragedy is brought forth by the confidence he put in theoretical protection and by his indifference to realpolitik and pragmatic behaviour. Richard has taken the norms of the King as a representative of God for granted. He, in this respect, killed his uncle the Duke Gloucester and caused fatal grief to his wife, he banished his cousin Bolingbroke causing deep grief and death to his uncle Gaunt, he seized all of Bolingbroke's land and money and increased his banishment to life, he headily levied taxes on the aristocrats and common people who turned to be restive, and he rented the lands of the state. Such a sarcastic contrast between the sacred title of kingship and the inner side of the King has artistically been thrown into relief in order to shatter the picture of 'the King Vicar of Christ in his kingdom.' Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is not an anointed King, but he is a usurper of the throne. He, on the sly, returned from exile taking advantage of the absence of Richard who was busy dealing with the rebellion in Ireland. He seized power and deposed Richard II. Bolingbroke, who had been declared King Henry IV, was hailed by the English people. Meanwhile, Richard was crying and lamenting his dethronement. He submissively accepted his new status and willingly handed the crown to Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke seized power because he has shown the strong Machiavellian King. Though he is a usurper, he is eligible to manage ruling and protecting the state. He is neither an anointed nor even a legitimate King, but he is a powerful knight and a pragmatic noble. He has practically worked on winning hearts and minds. Such strategies and others have been neglected by the deposed King.
Richard is the son of Edward of Woodstock, called the Black Prince who is the oldest son of the anointed Edward III King of England. The black prince was a brave warrior. Metaphorically, Richard is only a remaining warm ash left by his father's and grandfathers' fires. He covers his weakness with his eloquent linguistic play. Such traits are not enough to produce a divine king's cloak.