1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Recently, it has been proposed that (im)politeness in interaction today is governed in large part by a Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity (Culpeper and Tantucci 2021). This paper investigates whether politeness reciprocity works similarly in early modern English – specifically, in the plays of Shakespeare. Focussing on thanking behaviours, the questions of whether politeness reciprocity can be detected, and, if so, how social status might influence the nature of reciprocity, are addressed. The first part of the paper establishes that Early Modern English politeness behaviours were being discussed in terms associated with reciprocity (e.g., metaphors relating to balance and financial/commercial transactions). Then, all the instances of the two main thanking formula patterns (the verbal + + and the nominal ) were extracted from thirty-eight plays attributed wholly or substantially to Shakespeare, and coded for a number of variables, including the weightiness of the gift for which thanks has been given, the amount of effort expended in performing thanks, and the social statuses of the Thanker and Thankee. The results show that reciprocity does govern thanking behaviours, and that social status licences imbalances in those behaviours. The paper also touches on conventionalisation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
2022-10-13
2024-12-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jhp.00053.cul.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2014 [1996] Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. (Second edition.) London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315845128
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315845128 [Google Scholar]
  2. Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper
    2003 “Sociopragmatic Annotation: New Directions and Possibilities in Historical Corpus Linguistics”. InAndrew Wilson, Paul Rayson and Tony McEnery (eds), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, 37–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. H.
    2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper
    (eds) 1989 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryson, Anna
    1998 From Courtesy to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198217657.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198217657.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, Jonathan and Vittorio Tantucci
    2021 “The Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity”. Journal of Pragmatics175: 146–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan, Andrew Hardie, Jane Demmen, Jennifer Hughes and Matt Timperley
    2021 “Supporting the Corpus-based Study of Shakespeare’s Language: Enhancing a Corpus of the First Folio”. ICAME Journal45 (12): 37–86. 10.2478/icame‑2021‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2021-0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eelen, Gino
    2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. El-Mahallawi, Basma Mahmoud Mohamed
    2018 “The Use of Thanking Expressions and their Intensifiers from Early Modern to Present Day English.” FJHJ (Journal of Arts and Humanities, Minia University) 86 (4): 903–920. https://journals.ekb.eg/article_174628.html
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraser, Bruce and William Nolan
    1981 “The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language27: 93–109. 10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93 [Google Scholar]
  13. Garfinkel, Harold
    1964 “Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities”. Social Problems11 (3): 225–250. 10.2307/798722
     https://doi.org/10.2307/798722 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gouldner, Alvin W.
    1960 “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement”. American Sociological Review25 (2): 161–178. 10.2307/2092623
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 [Google Scholar]
  15. Guazzo, Stefano
    1581 The ciuile conuersation of M. Steeuen Guazzo written first in Italian, and nowe translated out of French by George Pettie, deuided into foure books […]. London: Richard Watkins.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “The Co-constitution of Politeness Implicature in Conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics39 (1): 84–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jacobsson, Mattias
    2002 “Thank You and Thanks in Early Modern English”. ICAME Journal26: 63–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jautz, Sabine
    2013 Thanking Formulae in English: Explorations across Varieties and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.230
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.230 [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, Mark
    1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Reason and Imagination. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jucker, Andreas H.
    2012 “‘What’s in a Name?’: Names and Terms of Address in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet”. InSarah Chevalier and Thomas Honegger (eds), Words, Words, Words: Philology and Beyond: Festschrift for Andreas Fischer on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, 77–97. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (ed.) 1995 Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2020 Politeness in the History of English: From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108589147
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589147 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kádár, Dániel Z.
    2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  25. Labov, William
    1972 “Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology”. Language in Society1 (1): 97–120. 10.1017/S0047404500006576
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
    1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Muldrew, Craig
    1998 The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑26879‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26879-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nuzzo, Regina
    2014 “Scientific Method: Statistical Errors”. Nature News506 (7487): 150–152. 10.1038/506150a
     https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a [Google Scholar]
  31. Ohashi, Jun
    2008 “Linguistic Rituals for Thanking in Japanese: Balancing Obligations”. Journal of Pragmatics40 (12): 2150–2174. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Oliver, Samuel J.
    2022 “A Corpus-based Approach to (Im)politeness Metalanguage: A Case Study on Shakespeare’s Plays”. Journal of Pragmatics199: 6–20. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Parvaresh, Vahid and Tahmineh Tayebi
    2018 “Impoliteness, Aggression and the Moral Order”. Journal of Pragmatics132: 91–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards, Jennifer
    2003 Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511483912
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511483912 [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. M.
    2005 “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture1 (1): 95–119. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  37. Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Wenying Jiang
    2003 “Explaining Cross-cultural Pragmatic Findings: Moving from Politeness Maxims to Sociopragmatic Interactional Principles (SIPs)”. Journal of Pragmatics35 (10–11): 1633–1650. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00025‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00025-0 [Google Scholar]
  38. Taavitsainen, Irma and Andreas H. Jucker
    2020 “Digital Pragmatics in English”. InSvenja Adolphs and Dawn Knight (eds), Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities, 107–124. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003031758‑7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031758-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tantucci, Vittorio, Jonathan Culpeper and Matteo Cristofaro
    2018 “Dynamic Resonance and Social Reciprocity in Language Change: The Case of Good Morrow”. Language Sciences68: 6–21. 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Terkourafi, M.
    2005 “Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research”. Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 237–262. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  41. Thirsk, Joan
    1978 Economic Policy and Projects: The Development of a Consumer Culture in Early Modern England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomas, Keith
    2018 In Pursuit of Civility: Manners and Civilization in Early Modern England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2017 “‘Insubordination’ in the Light of the Uniformitarian Principle”. English Language & Linguistics21 (2): 289–310. 10.1017/S1360674317000144
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000144 [Google Scholar]
  44. Watts, Richard J.
    2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  45. Werkhofer, Konrad T.
    2005 [1992] “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and the Power of Politeness”. InRichard J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 155–199. (Second edition.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Winters, Margaret E.
    2010 “Introduction: On the Emergence of Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics”. InMargaret E. Winters, Heli Tissari and Kathryn Allan (eds), Historical Cognitive Linguistics, 3–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226447.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226447.3 [Google Scholar]
  47. 02.04.18 (n.) Gratitude
    02.04.18 (n.) Gratitude 2021 InThe Historical Thesaurus of English. (Second edition, Version 5.0.) University of Glasgow. Accessed19 September 2021at: https://ht.ac.uk/category/?id=132004
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
Loading
Politeness reciprocity in Shakespeare’s dialogue
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 22, 202 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00053.cul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Early Modern English; politeness; reciprocity; Shakespeare; social status; thanks

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error